Full text of "An answer in defence of the truth against the Apology of private mass. By T. Cooper ... published in 1562. To which is prefixed (as in the original edition) the work answered, entitled An apology of private mass, an anonymous popish treatise against Bishop Jewel. Edited for the Parker society"

See other formats

90964 7

317

————
a—

RY ae rN va y yy
oo iy SPO
ir Biase 2 ANY
X S y $ CHE ‘
Wh iia
fr, ¥ 4 ih ie
| 1
4 i i
/ KN
f

ZS SS a

Sears = : 2 5 cS
Sete ort: . : ae

eure.

ae ev

| AN ANSWER
| IN DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH

AGAINST THE

APOLOGY OF PRIVATE MASS.

By T. COOPER, .
t_AFTERWARDS BISHOP,
FIRST OF LINCOLN, AND THEN OF WINCHESTER. >

PUBLISHED IN 1562..

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED
(AS IN THE ORIGINAL EDITION)
THE WORK ANSWERED, ENTITLED

AN APOLOGY OF PRIVATE MASS,

AN: ANONYMOUS POPISH TREATISE
AGAINST BISHOP JEWEIH.

EDITED FOR

The Parker Soctety,,

= BY (THE }
pRev., WILLIAM GOODE, M.A., F.S.A.,

RECTOR OF ALLHALLOWS THE GREAT AND LESS, LONDON.

CAMBRIDGE:

PRINTED AT

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
M.DCCC.L.

eee

*.. eae
‘—- Br ae
oS i . -
a asin
On dl

ADVERTISEMENT.

Tae work here reprinted is one which is not merely
Interesting from its great rarity and its connexion
with the controversy raised by Bishop Jewel’s famous
challenge to the Papists, but of importance from its

| intrinsic excellence. Of the Author of the Popish

-T'reatise prefixed, entitled An Apology of private Mass,
(which seems to have been circulated only in MS.
until it was printed in this work in conjunction with

| the Answer,) I am unable to give any account,

having failed in discovering any intimation of the

| name of the writer. The reply to it which follows,

entitled An Answer in defence of the truth, against
the Apology of private Mass, has been sometimes
attributed to Bishop Jewel; as for instance, in the
Bodleian Catalogue, Oxon. 1738 (under Missa), and
from hence by Watt in his “ Bibliotheca Britannica,”
and (probably on the same authority) by Dr J elf, in
his recent edition of the works of Bishop Jewel, (see

| Vol. rv. p: 201 and Vol. v. p. 62.) The words of the

Preface, however, in which Jewel is spoken of as
“a worthy learned man and bishop of this realm,”

iv ADVERTISEMENT.

prove that this is a mistake. The real author was
Thomas Cooper, then fellow of St Mary Magdalen
College, Oxford, and afterwards successively bishop
of Lincoln and Winchester. This fact we learn from
the following passage, in a work by Dr E. Cradocke,
Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford, published
only ten years after, that is, in 1572, when Dr Cooper
was bishop of Lincoln :—

“Being fully determined to write, upon the
matter, notwithstanding, whereupon I might fitliest,
ground my process, I was not by and by resolved.
Sometimes it came into my mind to take in hand
some controversy of this time. But considering with
myself what great learning hath been lately shewed
in such questions, I was quickly changed from that
mind. For what could any body now write of, for
the improving or defending of such things, which
very plentifully already hath not been discoursed ?
Would a man gladly be instructed touching the use
of images? Let him peruse D. Calfehil’s book
against Martial, Would he hear what can be said
of the Mass? Not only Master Dean of Paul’s his
books against Dorman are to be seen, but also
the Treatise of the right reverend father Bishop
Cowper, entitled, The defence of the truth against
the Mass, and the works of the late famous bishop
of worthy memory, D. Jewel; who in two of his
great volumes hath gone through with so many and
so profound matters of religion, that, for divers need-

ADVERTISEMENT. iv

ful points to be spoken of, they might well serve
a divine for common-place books.” (H. Cradocke’s
Ship of assured safety... containing in four books
a discourse of God’s Providence. Lond. Bynneman,
1572. 12mo. Epistle Dedic. to the Earl of Leicester,

dated May 19, 1572, p. 4.)

For this reference I am indebted to Bishop Tan-
ner, who in his “ Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica,”
(Lond. 1748, fol. p. 198.) ascribes the treatise to
Bishop Cooper, on the authority of this passage.

The testimony of Cradocke is so decisive, that it
seems hardly necessary to refer to any other authori-
ties ; but it may be added, that Dr Fulke also in his
“ Catalogue of all such Popish books either answered
or to be answered,” &c., prefixed to his work en-
titled, “‘D. Heskins, D. Sanders and M. Rastel...
overthrown and detected,” &c. (Lond. 1579, 8vo.)
notices the treatise thus,—“ A defence of the private
Masse, answered (by conjecture) by M. Cooper, Bishop
of Lincoln ;” which testimony he repeats in a similar
Catalogue prefixed to his work entitled, “T. Staple-
ton and Martiall (two Popish Heretics) confuted,” &c.
Lond. 1580, 8vo.

Not having, as a Cambridge divine, the same
opportunity of information as Dr Cradocke, who
was of the same University as Bishop Cooper and
a contemporary, Dr Fulke naturally speaks with the
uncertainty of one who is only giving the testimony
of common report.

vi ADVERTISEMENT.

The testimony of Fulke is quoted, as shewing
that Bishop Cooper is probably the author of the
work, by Thomas Baker, in his notes on Wood's
Athenz Oxon. (see Wood’s Athen. Oxon. ed. Bliss,
Vol. 1. col. 612), and by Placcius in his Theatrum
Anon. et Pseudon. ed. Hamb. 1708. fol. Tom. 1.
p- 516.

The work is noticed by Herbert, in his edition of |
Ames’s Typographical Antiquities, (Vol. 1. p. 875,)
where the titles exactly correspond with those of the
book here reprinted, excepting that Herbert has
accidentally omitted, in the first title, the line “ order
appoincted in the.” But he adds,—“ The orthography
of this differing so considerably from Mr Ames’s
copy, has the appearance of two editions in the same
month.” The following is the title as given by Ames:

“An apologie of the private masse, sediciously
spread abroad in writing, without name of the
author; as it seemeth against the offer and pro-
testacion made in certain sermons, by the reverende
father, byshop of Salesburie; with an answere and
confutation of the same apologie. Set foorth for
the maintenance and defence of the trueth. Perused
and allowed, by the reverent father in God,
Edmonde, bishop of London, according to the
queen’s majesties injunctions. Mense Nov. 1562.”
(Ames’s Typograph. Antiq. Lond. 1749, 4to. p. 305.)

The title is marked with an asterisk, indicating
that the book was in his possession.

oS eee
We

ADVERTISEMENT. Vii

I am unable to account for this discrepancy in
the description of the title, but am indisposed to
think that there was more than one edition of the
work. Possibly the title given by Ames may have
been prefixed to some copies of the work, and then
withdrawn for the other. |

A. copy of the work is in the University Library

+ at Cambridge, and another (in a somewhat imperfect

state) is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The
copy from which the following reprint is taken, at
the request of the Council of the Parker Society, is
in my own possession, purchased at the sale of the
library of the late Archdeacon Pott.

I subjoin a brief Biographical Notice of Bishop
Cooper, and a list of his Works which I believe

will be found more complete and accurate than

those hitherto given.

WG.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
OF

BISHOP COOPER.

Tue following account is given of Bishop Cooper
by Anthony a Wood, in his Athenw Oxonienses.

“Tuomas Couper or Cooper was born within the
city of Oxon, educated in grammar learning in the
school joining to St Mary Magdalen College, being
then a chorister of that house ; where with very great
industry, making proficiency beyond his years, [he ]
was elected probationer in 1539, and in the year fol-
lowing perpetual fellow of the said house. After-
wards proceeding in the faculty of arts, he was made
master of the school wherein he had been educated ;
left his fellowship about 1546, and gave himself solely
up to the studies of Humanity and Medicine. In the
reign of Queen Mary he, being then inclined to the
Protestant religion, took, as it seems, a degree in
Physic, and practised that faculty in Oxon; but
when she was dead, he re-assumed his former faculty
of Divinity, became a frequent preacher, took the
degrees in that faculty in the latter end of 1566,

x BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF

being about that time made Dean of Christ Church
in Oxon, and was several years after Vice-Chan-
cellor of the University. In 1569, he was made
Dean of Gloucester, in the place of John Man de-
ceased, and in 1570, Feb. 24, he was consecrated
Bishop of Lincoln. In 1584 he was translated to
Winchester ; where, as in most parts of the nation,
he became much noted for his learning and sanctity
of life. I have heard: some reverend and ancient
divines of this University say, (as they had heard it
from others who knew the man,) that at what time
Dr Cooper was to leave Oxon, to go to the see of
Lincoln, he did humbly confess, in his farewell ser-
mon to the University, That he was born of very
mean parents in Cat Street, that he had undergone
several mean and servile offices in Magdalen College,
till by the favour of friends he was advanced to be
fellow and schoolmaster, &c. And so going forward
with a recital of the chief parts of his life, did, in
conclusion, humbly acknowledge God’s great provi-
dence towards him, praying withal, That he would
be pleased to prosper him in that great employment
which was put upon him, &c. Of this person much
may be said, and perhaps some wrong might redound
to his memory, if I should say little ; for he was in-
deed a reverend man, very well learned, and exceed-
ing industrious....The course of his life in Oxon was
very commendable.... At length this reverend and holy
bishop, paying his last debt to nature at Winchester,

BISHOP COOPER. xi

= ee ,

eae ree
= -

29 April, in 1594, was buried on the south side of
the choir, a little above the bishop’s seat belonging
to the cathedral there. Over his grave was soon
after laid a flat marble, with an inscription thereon in
prose and verse, a copy of which you may read in
Mist. et Antig. Univ. Oxon. Lib. a. p. 197, a.”
(Athen. Oxon. ed Bliss, Vol. 1. col. 668—612).

The following is a list of Bishop Cooper's
Works :—

1, An Epitome of Chronicles, containing the
whole discourse of Histories as well of this realm
of England, as all other Countries...first by Tho-
mas Lanquet, from the beginning of the world to
the Incarnation of Christ, and now finished and con-
tinued to the reign of our sovereign Lord King
Edward the Sixth, by Thomas Cooper. Lond. T.
Berthelet, 1549. 4to. An edition surreptitiously put
forth by some other hand, with additions, was pub-

| lished 1559. 4to. A second edition, by T. Cooper,
| continued to the death of Queen Mary, was pub-
| lished under the title of Cooper's Chronicle, Lond.
_ | T. Berthelet, 1560. 4to. ; anda third, continued to the
_ | 7th year of Queen Elizabeth, in 1565, 4to.

2. Bibliotheca Eliote. Sive Dictionarium Lat.

q | et Angl. auctum et emend. per Tho. Cooper, Lond.
_ | T. Berthelet, 1548. fol.—Eliot’s Dictionary, the

xil : BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF

second time enriched and more perfectly corrected,
by Thomas Cooper, Schoolmaster of Maudlen’s in
Oxford. Lond. T. Berthelet, 1552. fol—Eliot’s Dic-
tionary, by T. Cooper, the third time corrected, Lond.
T. Berthelet, 1559. fol.

3. Thesaurus Lingue Romane et Beate nee
op. et ind. T. Cooperi Magdalenensis. Accessit Dic-
tionarium Historicum et Poeticum, Lond. 1565. fol.
Reprinted 1573, 1578, 1584. fol.

4. A Brief Exposition of such chapters of the
Old Testament as usually are read in the Church at
Common Prayer on the Sundays throughout the
year. Lond. 1573. Ato.

5. True and perfect copy of a godly Sermon
preached in the Minster at Lincoln, 28th Aug. 1575,
on Matt. xvi. 26, 27. Lond. 1575. 16mo., 1619. 4to.

6. Articles to be enquired of within the Diocese
of Lincoln, in the Visitation of Thomas, Bishop of
Lincoln. Lond. R. Newbery, 1574.

7- Injunctions given by the Rev. Father in God,
Thomas, Bishop of Lincoln, to be observed through-
out his Diocese. Lond. R. Newbery, 1577.

8. Certain Sermons, wherein is contained the
Defence of the Gospel now preached against cavils
and false accusations, as are objected both against
the doctrine itself and the preachers and professors
thereof by the friends and favorers of the Church
of Rome. Lond. 1580. 4to. These Sermons are
twelve in number, and are on Rom.i. 16; Matt. vii.

BISHOP COOPER. xii

40,16; 1 Cor.,x. 1; 3, 5; Matt. xiii. 3, 5; John
viii. 46.

9. An Admonition to the People of England,
wherein are answered not only the slanderous un-
truths reproachfully uttered by Martin the Libeller,
but also many other crimes by some of his brood
objected generally against all Bishops, and the chief
of the Clergy, purposely to deface and discredit the
present state of the Church. Lond. 1589. 4to. There
were two editions of this work in the same year,
1589, in the second of which, though having precisely
the same title, and no notice of being a second edition,
various alterations were made. The second edition
was reprinted, Lond. 1847, 8vo. The work was pub-
lished anonymously, but is well known to be Bishop
Cooper’s, and has the initials T. C. at the end of the
Preface.

To these must be added (on the authority of the
evidence given in the foregoing “ Advertisement ”’)
the work here reprinted, namely,—

10. An Answer in defence of the truth against
the Apology of Private Mass. Lond. 1562: 12mo.

Both Bishop Tanner in his Bibliotheca Britan-
nico-Hibernica,(Lond. 1748, fol.) and Dr Bliss in his
edition of Wood’s Athene Oxonienses, add to these
the following :—

Homilies on the Seven Sacraments, 1558.

But this is clearly a mistake, as Bishop Cooper
was then engaged in medical pursuits, and moreover

xiv BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF |

was a Protestant. The work referred to is the fol-
lowing :—Holsome and Catholike Doctrine concern-
ing the Seven Sacraments of Chrystes Church. Lond.
1558, 4to., which is by Thomas Watson, then Bishop
of Lincoln, but deprived on the accession of Queen
Elizabeth. The mistake has no doubt arisen from
both authors having the name, “Thomas, Bishop of
Lincoln.”

Of MSS. of Bishop Cooper remaining, Bishop
Tanner (in the work above quoted) gives the follow-
ing account :—

“Oxoniensis Academia gratulationem de adventu
serenissime reg. Elizabethe ad edes comitis Leyces-
trensis, cancellarit acad. coram eadem pronunciatam
aT. Cooper. Pr. ‘ Mirum fortasse tibi videri,’ &c.
MS. C. C. C. Oxon. Twin. 1v. et MS. bibl. reg.
Westmon. 12. A. xtvu. Librum ordinationum et
decretorum pro coll. S. M. Magd. Oxon. factorum
et institutorum per T. Cooperum epis. Winton. dat.
17 Octob. MpLxxxv. Christianam cum fratribus con-
sultationem, utrum pu verbi ministri prescriptam a
magistratibus vestium rationem suscipere et liquido
possint et nire debeant. Pr. ded. M. Parkero, Archiep.
Cant. ‘Quod semel atque iterum postulasti.’ MS,
C. C. C. Cantabr. Miscell. F. p. 135. [ccoxn. 7. p.
354. Nasmith’s Cat.]...XZpistolam M. Parkero. [dat.
Jan. 4, 1568.] MS. C. C. C. Cantabr. Miscell. 839.
[cxiv. 306, p. 166. Nasm. Cat.]”

To these Dr Bliss, in his edition of Wood’s Athe-

BISHOP COOPER. XV

on ae se id Een oP) a eae S Stree

ne Oxonienses, (1. 612, 613,) adds the following :—
“Original Letters from him, MSS. Cotton., Vespasian,
F. xi. fol. 187, dated June 14, 1586; Otho, E. xz.

1 fol. 196, January 25 and 27, 1587-8. The last, con-

cerning the musters of his diocese, to the Earl of
Essex, then Lord Lieutenant of Hants.”

WeG,

AN APOLOGY

An Apologte

of pribate Masse, spred a
broade in foriting Mithout name
of the authour: as it seemeth, a-
qainst the offer and protestacion
made in certapne Sermons by
the reberent father Wisshop of
Salsburie: with an ansher to
the same Apolonie, set foorth

for the maintenance and

Defence of the
trueth,

Perused and allowed, by the reberent
father in God EComonde BWisshop
of London, accordpnge to the
order appotneted tn the
Queenes matestes
Tniunctions.

LONDINI.
Mens. Nouemb,
1562.

.
2

E
[
ie
B,

AN APOLOGY

PRIVATE MASS.

Havine heard by sundry sufficient re-
ports of large offers in open places before
right honourable audience, more stoutly, as
wise men think, than clerkly, for the main-
tenance of divers untruths: and that the
learned of the clergy here stand bound in
recognizance, not to gainsay any doctrine
now preached, which otherwise are well
able to control all such erroneous fancies
lately devised : notwithstanding I am no-
thing comparable to the learned of the
clergy, yet, being brought up in learning
always beyond the seas, having before mine
eyes the fear of God, and mine heart greatly
lamenting to see error outface the truth,
thought it good for the discharge of mine
own conscience before God and you, to
discover certain vanities of yours, that the
catholic church (once your mother) mis-
hiketh in you. And so much the rather,
because God of his infinite goodness hath
called me back again from all such lewd
fancies, by the godly instruction of the
learned: in the which I was once so fully

persuaded by evil books, that all that time

I neither regarded God, nor good religion,
nor any good conscience besides. And
therefore, trusting to do some good with
such as simplicity without malice hath per-

AN APOLOGY

CAP. I.

Against his
refusal in the
first Epistle
to D. Cole.

suaded to stay, conscience pricked me to
give the adventure: nothing doubting but
that God will bring that to a good end,
the beginning whereof had no evil meaning.

And to make mine entry with you,
master Jewel, which are counted the
greatest clerk on your side, I marvel not a
little why you, being reputed a man of
such learning, utterly refuse to prove the
doctrine you teach; alleging very slender
causes of your refusal, that serve the con-
trary side, rather than yours. Your voca-
tion to so high a room, the place where
you taught, the honourable estate of the
audience which heard you, the doctrine you
taught, authorised by the realm, as you
allege, do not unburden you from the proof
of your doctrine, but rather burden you
more to prove the same ; because your estate
is now such, that is bound to render account
of that you ‘teach. Nor is it any dishonour
to the realm, if you be able to certify that
by learning, that they (as you say) have
passed by laws ; nor want of discretion at
all in you to teach them, that would so
gladly learn at your hand. For if a man
may prove by conference of scriptures any
article therein comprised, either in the letter,
or by argument bolted forth, without any
dishonour to God, or blemish to him that
taketh the matter in hand (as a man indeed
may), shall you count the realm dishonoured,
or want of discretion in yourself, to prove
such doctrine (as yourself do publish), be-
cause it is authorised by man, and by the

OF PRIVATE MASS.

| assent of the realm? which in time of your

baptism assented to the contrary, as all
other christian realms did, without any
contradiction at all, amongst the learned:
whereas in this assent, as many learned
clerks, well-known to the world, said nay,
and more too, than hitherto hath said yea.
And if the chief proof of your doctrine be
the assent of this realm, shall not other
christian realms, that teach quite contrary
unto you, rest in doctrine authorised by
them and all christian realms besides?
Here you are driven, if you rest so stoutly
upon the assent of realms, to confess that
the doctrine taught here is true, because
this realm hath authorised it: and the
doctrine in strange realms is true, being
quite contrary to yours, because by like
reason the realms there hath authorised it.
You have no refuge in this case, but to say,
that this realm followed the scripture in
such doctrine as they authorised, and that
other realms followed not the scripture in
authorising the contrary. I am well con-
tented with your answer. But where be
the scriptures whereby the realm authorised
your doctrine? You may not say, it shall
be great dishonour to the realm, to have
such scriptures known, for want of discre-
tion in you to utter them: as you seem to
say in your letters. Let us know such
scriptures as your trust is most upon, to
prove your doctrine by, and we will depart
quietly. And as all wise men will count it
the office of a discreet man, either to stay

jsuch as stagger, or to persuade such as

AN APOLOGY

Against his
staying upon
the negative.

verily think otherwise: so shall I not only
so think, but also, if you give me good
cause why, yield you great thanks, and my

| poor service too. In your silence herein, if

you have ought to say, you shall do nothing
else but hide the candle under the bushel:
whereas the order is to set it upon the
candlestick, to light all such as are within
the house. If you have no scriptures to
lay for you, then trouble our mother the
holy catholic church no longer.

You stand in negatives: you say against
private masses and certain other, which, as
you pretend, cannot be proved. Have we not
here good cause to marvel that you, which
study so marvellous reformation of all doc-
trine to the touchstone of scripture, will
openly profess, bearing such a personage in
such places of honour, such doctrine as can
neither be proved by scripture, nor any other
substantial record: and all because it stand-
eth in negatives? May not children in this
sort devise negatives containing false doc-
trine, and when they are called upon to
prove it, say they are not bound to. prove
their assertions, because they are negatives ?
This dare I be bold to say: if you had
sentence, or half sentence, word, or half
word in the scriptures, old doctors, general
councils, or example of the primitive church
against private masses, all England had
rung of it ere this day. But you have
none, as your silence importeth. It were
either great folly to keep that secret, the
which without any damage may do good
to many, or marvellous envy to enclose

OF PRIVATE MASS.

that without gain, which law and reason
would have to be common. Quicquid dando

| non deficit (saith St Austin), guamdiu ha-

betur, et non datur, nondum habetur, quo-
modo habendum est’. “ Allthat decay not
by bestowing, as long as they are had, and
not bestowed, they are not yet had, as they
ought to be had.” The laws may in divers
‘special facts, not restrained to time and
place, teach perhaps, that a negative cannot
be proved. But to say that a negative in
doctrine, as yours is, cannot be proved upon
only consideration that it is a negative, as
your shift is, that I am well assured no
learned man hitherto ever taught ; either in
law, or in any other science besides. Yea,
the contrary rather appeareth in logic: the
which teacheth the general grounds of all
disputations. Where we have in every
figure, negative conclusions. And for other
short kind of arguments, there are as many
places dialectical of the negatives to destroy,
as there are affirmatives to build on. So
that shift of descant cannot serve your turn.
Doth not the scripture many times join
issue in the negative, and prove the same?
We are not justified by Moses’ law, and so
the like. Doth not the apostles prove it at
large ?

But forasmuch as you are not able to
prove the negative, I will no further trouble
you therewith. Yet, when there is an af-

[} Omnis enim res que dando non deficit, dum
habetur et non datur, nondum habetur quomodo ha-
_ | benda est.—Ave. De doctr. Christ. Lib. 1. c.1. Tom.
_ | ut. p. 1. col. 5. Op. ed. Ben. Paris. 1689, et seq-]

AN APOLOGY

CAP. II.

A distinction
of private.

firmative implied in the negative, as there is
here, though I discharge you of very gentleness
from the proof of the one, order of schools
will drive you to prove the other: though it
were in facts, much more in doctrine.

Your negative was, that there was no
private mass at all in the primitive church;
thus you say, and shew no cause why.
This term private, which you in this place
first invented, I mean Luther's school, may
be taken concerning this matter divers ways.
One way, private is contrary to common,
to many. And in this signification, we
never said that any mass was private. For
the catholic church ever taught, that the
mass is a common or public sacrifice, re-
strained to none so, but that the whole
church, or any lively member thereof, had
thereby great commodity ; and might, being
prepared, and well-disposed, be partaker,
not only of the Common Prayer and Suffra-
ges offered up to God in the mass, but also
of the holy sacrament of Christ’s body and
blood therein consecrated and offered. We
never yet prisoned up the holy sacrifice of
the mass, or the sacrament therein received,
or the use of any of them, from any that |
disposed themselves godly. If you had
heard us preach that the mass is only
available to the priest, or to princes, or to
us of England, or to them of Italy, or to
men, and not to women, or to such as are

alive, and not to such as are dead, or to say

that none ought to receive the sacrament
but the priest, you might have eharged us

OF PRIVATE MASS.

that we went about to enclose that to some
‘one sort of private profit, that ought to

‘| remain in common for all sorts of people.
| And in this wise we never taught, that any

mass was private.

But you have the other signification of
this term private: that is, the sole re-
ceiving of the sacrament by the priest,
embarring none to communicate with him,
yea, rather rejoicing, if any would be so
well disposed to receive with him; and
lamenting, when he seeth the people so evil
disposed, that none will order themselves
so, that they may worthily receive with
him; and yet not forcing them to receive,
when they are not disposed, nor ready. And
in this meaning of private, the catholic
church doth teach, that the priest may re-
ceive the sacrament at mass alone, when
none other is disposed to receive with him.
Now, if you be able, we require you to
prove the affirmative included in your

|negative; which is this: That every

priest, or any other, ought, when he re-
ceiveth the sacrament, to have company to
receive with him in the same time and
place, upon pain of God’s high indignation :
and then we will yield unto you. If you

be able to prove neither the negative, nor |

the affirmative, storm not so sore against
the doctrine of the catholic church, the
which falsehood many times assaulteth, and
was never yet able to overthrow.

As you say, there was no private mass

a | in the primitive church, and say untruly, so

CAP. III.

AN APOLOGY

That all
things should
not be
brought to
the form of
the primitive
ehurceh,

The primi-

tive church
the state of
infancy.

may you say and say truly, there was no
christian king in the apostles’ time. There
was no christian man that then counted any-
thing his own of such things as he possessed ;
but all were common. There was then no
doctrine taught, but it was confirmed by
miracles. There was no woman that might
come with open face to the church. There
was no bishop endowed with temporalities,
There was no distinction commonly of pa-
rishes. There was nothing eaten that was
mingled with blood. There was no whole
realms turned to the faith. There was no
receiving of the sacrament, but after supper.
There was no infant but was houselled. And
thus may we roll in a great sort such, there
was not, truly, as you roll in divers of yours,
falsely. And will you, I beseech ye, reform
all things to the very state of the primitive
church now? Will you suppress all chris-
tian kings which were not in the apostles’
time? Will you alter the state now, and
make all things to be common? Will you
disgrace all preachers that work not miracles?
Will you enforce women to hoodwink them-
selves in the church? Will you rail against
bishops that keep any temporalities? Will
ye set men at liberty to do their duty at
what church they will? Will ye inhibit
the folks to eat bloodings, or pigeons, or
capons, such as are killed by stifling? Will
you enforce us to be houselled after supper ?
Will you housel all babes and infants again ?
To call such things to the state of the
apostles’ time, and of the primitive church
again, is nothing else, but to enforce a tall

ee en ee

IG TS

ee |
BETTE 4 ee SE

OF PRIVATE MASS.

man to come to his swaddling clothes, and
to cry alarm in his cradle again. I trust
when you say there was no private mass in
the primitive church, notwithstanding you
disallow private mass, yet you will allow
mass to be in the primitive church: or else
wisdom would have said more generally
there was no mass at all, nor private, nor
common, &c. And yet there is an open dif-
ference between these two sentences: there
was no private mass at that time, and there
ought to be no private mass at any time.
In the one, we conceive the use of that age,
notwithstanding the law of the church even
then might stand indifferently to the con-
trary, upon circumstances and good con-
siderations. And in the other, we precisely
conceive what the law doth determine, either
lawful or unlawful.

The constant faith, the pure life, the
fervent charity, the contempt of the world,
that then flourished so amongst such as
professed Christ, might cause, perhaps, that
no mass was celebrated, but that divers
Christians, and specially looking for conti-
nual persecution, would be houselled thereat,
and be always sure to have their wa-
ticum, as it is termed in the old canons,
that is to say, their voyage-provision. In
that state of burning charity, and of con-
tempt of the world, and all the pleasures
thereof, some of the people, perhaps of their
own accord, did always willingly and gladly
prepare themselves at every mass to be
houselled with the priest ; and will you now

|in the state of key-cold charity, when the

An argument
of the com-
parison of the
times.

AN APOLOGY

[Matt. xix.
21.)

people are nothing willing to dispose them-
selves to receive their housel, pluck the priest
from the altar, whose office is to offer that
daily sacrifice for the people, unless there be
that will receive? Will you embar him
that is bound to offer up the daily sacrifice
of duty, because they will not dispose them-_
selves to receive their housel? Who, as
concerning so often receiving, are not bound,
but stand at liberty. The church doth ex-
hort them to the frequentation of their housel,
but giveth no commandment to bind them:
as Christ said, Si vis perfectus esse, vade, et
vende omnia que habes, et da pauperibus;
“If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that
thou hast, and give it to the poor.” Which
implieth the nature of a counsel, to exhort
men to the highest degree of christianity,
concerning the bestowing of the goods of the
world ; and yet is no commandment to bind
any that are not so disposed. Even so we
may exhort and counsel folks to frequent
the receiving of their rights without any
commandment to bind them. Now the lay-
men are at liberty concerning the frequen-
tation: the priest is bound to the frequenta-
tion. Is it then reason that he, that may
choose whether he will frequently receive or
no, should, when he is not disposed, cause
him to offend the law of God that is bound
thereto? If you had any such text in the
holy scripture to bind the priest never to say
mass without some to communicate, as this
text: St? vis perfectus esse, vade, vende, seemeth
to command him that will be perfect, to sell
all that he hath, and bestow it upon the

OF PRIVATE MASS.

13 |

poor; Lord! how would ye then triumph:
because you had then some colour against

| private mass. And yet when the matter
_| were well bolted, you shall never be able to
| prove any commandment thereby against the
sole receiving of the sacrament by the priest, |

but a counsel to exhort him, if it might be,
to the highest and most perfect estate.

But to prescribe of necessity that there
ought, upon pain of God's indignation, to
be a company to communicate with the
priest at every mass, or else forbear the cele-
bration of the holy sacrifice, having no tittle
of any such colour in the holy scripture, I
will not call that by the name that I may
justly, but will temper the matter, and term
it an itching folly, to alter all things that are
well settled already.

St Chrysostom, in his Third Homily upon

|the Epistle to the Ephesians, in his com-

plaint there doth so set forth the matter,
as it is to be wished both what the people
should do, and what the priest may do. If
the people will not follow his exhortations,
then no man, I suppose, without great im-
pudency, will any longer stand in the denial
thereof. For as we may well and godly
wish that all folks were so well agreed that
all suits in the law might surcease: and yet
this godly wish, when any contention should
chance, that cannot otherwise be finished,
doth not inhibit but that men may sue for

| their right. For the highest’ or the per-
_| fectest state doth not extinguish the mean
| or the low: even so all good men may wish
| that all christian people were always so de-

CAPS Va

A.
A similitude
that company
is not neces-
sary.

Nie

AN APOLOGY

The priest of
duty bound
to sacrifice.

CAP. V.

vout and well disposed, that they might,
with God’s favour, receive their housel daily.
And yet were it injury, because all will not,
to inhibit such as would. Or if none would,
to embar the priest that is bound to offer up
the daily sacrifice for himself and the people.

St Chrysostom writeth thus: Jn alus
quidem temporibus, quum puri frequenter
sitis, non acceditis: in pascha vero, licet sit
aliquid a vobis perpetratum, acceditis. O con-
suetudinem! O presumptionem! sacrificium
Jrustra quotidianum offerimus. Incassum
assistimus altari, nullus est qui communice-
tur: hic non ut temere communicemini dico,
sed ut vos dignos reddatis'. “ At other
times,” saith he, “although you be for the |
most part in clean life, you come not, but at
Easter you come, though you have done
somewhat amiss. Fie upon that custom, fie
upon such presumption, the daily sacrifice is
in vain. We stand at the altar for nought.
There is none to be houselled. I speak not
these things because you should receive your
housel rashly, but for the intent you should
make yourselves worthy.” In these words
of St Chrysostom, this doth first appear,
that at that time the people at Easter would
receive their housel in what case soever they

[! ’Ev pév rots adXots Katpots ovdé Kabapol wok
Aakis dvTes Tpocépxeabe, év 6 TH ldo ya, Kav H Tt
TeToApnpevoy bulv, Wpdoite. w THs cuVvynleias, w
Tis TpodnWews* eixy Ovoia Kkabnuepivy, eikh Tap-
eoTykapev TH OQvotacTnpiw, ovdels 6 peTéxwv.
Tavta ovx iva adwiws peTéxnte, Aéyw, a\rX’ Wa
akious éavtols KatacKxeva{nte.—CHEBys. in Ephes.

cap. 1. Hom. 3. Op. ed. Bened. Paris. Tom. x1. p. 23.]

OF PRIVATE MASS.

| were in, good or bad. And at other times
_| of the year, though they were in good case
| and pure life, fit to receive, yet they would
_|refrain the receiving of their rights. And
_| therefore he blameth, and in manner crieth
| out upon that custom, whereby the people
"| rather consider the prescript time of Easter
_| to receive, than a clean life and pure con-
|| science. For as godly people may at any

time receive their housel, without restraint
to any one prescript time in the year, and

| the oftener they so receive the same, the

more their godly devotion thereby doth in-
crease, even so the ungodly ones are rather
commanded to do penance for their evil life,
and to make themselves ready and worthy,
than to come rashly without search of con-
science, without trial of themselves, without
penance done for their offences, to receive
their housel only upon consideration of pre-
script time, because they had used of long
time to do so. And this is the presumption
he crieth out upon, that pricketh the people

| upon custom to receive unworthily : and yet
_| at other times, where none would receive,

neither such as might worthily, nor such as

cc Dee ee Tl

AN APOLOGY

the daily sacrifice was frustra in vain. Not
for because the daily sacrifice in the mass
was nothing available, but because he looked
that the people would dispose themselves to
do as they were exhorted. And that was
vain, because nullus est qui communicetur.
There was none that wouldbe houselled. And
yet the priest did celebrate notwithstanding.
For it is said, that he standeth at the altar;
and what to do but to celebrate the daily
sacrifice? Can you call that a daily sacrifice
that is not daily offered up? or that a daily
sacrifice that is not celebrated but once in
the year, at Easter? At the which time the
people used to receive: all other times they
refrained, Quia nullus est qui communicetur.
“‘ There is none to communicate.” Is it not
evident by this complaint of St Chrysostom,
that the priest did his duty, notwithstanding
there was none to receive with him? Or.
else if he were constrained to refrain when
none would receive with him, doth it not
appear, that then it followeth, that he did
celebrate but at Easter only, for then he had
company, and at other times he lacked. Quia
nullus est qui communicetur ? And then
how could it be called Sacrificium quotidia-
num, ‘the daily sacrifice?’ Doubtless it could
not. And therefore it is plain that then the
priest did his duty in celebration of the mass,
though none received with him. Have we
not found then that in Chrysostom’s time
there was private mass, as you do term it ?
Why say you, that, in all other things we
hold contrary unto you, we had some colour
other [either] in scriptures, or old doctors:

OF PRIVATE MASS.

but in such doctrine as you made your entry
upon, whereof this is one, you are assured we
had no colour at all to make any proof in

4 very deed. You hear that Chrysostom tes-

tifieth the use of his time for private mass,
plainly and flatly without colour at all.
What colour, I pray you, have you, either
in scriptures, old doctors, or councils, against
private mass? As it appeareth hitherto,
nothing at all.

Your own principles, that such as ye are
first invented, will drive you in manner to
confess the catholic doctrine in this behalf.
You say against prescript fasting-days, the
doctrine that is not evidently determined by
scripture, ought to stand free and indifferent.
But the doctrine of the necessity of company

| to receive with the priest is nowhere deter-

mined so by the scripture: it should stand
then by your vain principle as free, and a
thing indifferent. And will you have free-
dom in scripture driven to necessity without

| scripture? Will you clog us with the very

tittle and syllable of the scripture, and suck
out a bond of necessity from thence to en-
force us to do in all points the like, and
specially in the order of the ministration of
the holy sacrament of the altar? Then
must we ask you, how dare you minister
the sacrament in England, seeing that Christ
only ministered it in Jewry? And here you
must confess the observation of the place
precisely not to be necessary. Why minister

| you unto women, when Christ ministered
jit unto men? Here you will grant that

"CAP: VI.

[ PRIV. MASS. |

AN APOLOGY

you are not constrained by God’s law unto
the male. Why do you minister it in the
morning before dinner, when Christ minis-
tered it in the evening after supper? True
it is, you will say, that Christ ministered
it after supper, but he gave no law to bind
unto that time. Why enterprize you to do
that upon Sundays often, that Christ did
once upon Shere-Thursday ?, You will an-
swer in like wise, that there is no scripture
that commandeth us to forbear any day in
the year. Why do you that openly in the
church, that Christ did secretly in a parlour ?
Because we have no commandment in scrip-
ture to forbear any property of place. Why
do you minister it to the laity, where Christ
gave it only unto the apostles that were
priests? You will say, that we have no
commandment to exclude any state of men.
Why do you minister it to more or fewer,
when Christ ministered it only unto twelve ?
And what answer have you here, but to say
as you said before, that as place, sex, time,
day, degree, state of people, secretness, are
nothing appertaining as necessary to the sub-
stance of the sacrament; so number is but
an accident or an ornament rather to beautify
the devotion of christian people in receiving
the sacrament, than thereunto appertaining
as necessary unto the substance? And thus
may you perceive, that when you require
the like doing to Christ herein in every small
point or tittle in us, as in place, time, sex,
day, state of people, secretness, number, you
deceive yourselves, and others, Taking these
things to be necessary for the safeguard of

OF PRIVATE MASS.

the substance of the sacrament, the which
are nothing else but very accidents: the al-
teration whereof do lie in the discretion of
spiritual governors, without damage or hurt
done to the substance of the sacrament or the
use thereof: and are to be counted amongst
such things, as St Paul speaketh of, when he
wrote, Cetera cum venero disponam ; “I will
set the other things in order, when I come.”

But the great matter you harp on, to
have company together in one place to re-
ceive at any time with the priest, is because
that in the use of this sacrament there ought
to be a communion. And I pray you, is not
there a communion among all Christians in
prayer? For in our prayer we say, our
Father, not my Father, which art in hea-
ven; thy will be done in earth, as it is in
heaven; not in me, as it is in heaven; give
us this day our daily bread; we say not,
give me this day my daily bread; forgive
us our trespasses; we say not, forgive me
my trespasses, &c. Whereby we know that

||-we communicate in prayer with all Chris-

tendom, being members of one mystical body
of Christ. And will you inhibit me to say
my Pater noster when I am alone in my
chamber, void of company to say with me,
or will you shut up all Christendom in some
narrow room, that they may be together at

|| one time to say the Lord’s prayer? Or will

you grant that there may be a communion

{im prayer amongst all Christians, without
any respect to have them together at one
time in any one place, and that there can

[1 Cor. xi.34.]

CAP. VII.

‘AN APOLOGY

be no communion in the use of the sacra-
ment, unless all the communicants be toge-
ther in one place, and at one time? Have
you any scripture to lead you to say, that
the communion in the use of the sacrament
must of necessity have all the communicants
in one place at one time close up, more than
the communion in prayer? One of the ar-
ticles of the Creed is, Credo sanctorum com-
munionem. “TI believe the communion of
saints.” I believe we have communion in
baptism, in penance, in confirmation, in ex-
treme unction, in prayer, in fasting, in alms-
deeds. And must all they that practise any
of these, be driven to do it at one place, in
one season, or else to have no part of such
a communion as there is comprised in these
holy sacraments? Is this your doctrine?
Where have you these in scripture? There
is an old doctor, called Dionysius, that teach~
eth us why it is called a communion!: not
because it requireth unity and identity of
time and place in the communicants; but
because all Christians thereby, being lively
members of one body first, are brought to
an unity with Christ their head, and then
every member with the mystical body; and
then every member with other. So that
in the working of this ‘marvellous unity,
number, time, and place are no principal
doers, but foreigners and very strangers in-

[} ‘Exaorns ieporeXeotixis Tpayuatetas Kal
Tas pepioTas wy Cwas eis evoerdy Oéwow ovva-
yovons, kal TH THY OtatpeT@y Dcoedet cummrbeer
THY Weds TO Ev KoLvwviav Kal Evwowv dwpovpevyns.—

Dionys. AREopP. De Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3. Op. ed.
Antwerp. 1634. Tom. 1. p. 282.]

SS a a .

OF PRIVATE MASS. 21
deed. And the place of St Paul meaneth
no less in the first to the Corinthians: Quo- | [1 Cor. x. 17.]

niam unus panis et unum corpus multi
sumus, omnes quidem de uno pane et de uno
calice participamus: whereby we hear that
Christians are partakers of one loaf; and yet
there is no one particular place able to re-
ceive them, nor yet no one particular loaf
able to serve them.

Surely as touching your fancy to have of
necessity the communicants closed up in one
place, there to be served at one especial time,
or else to be no partakers of the communion,
it will fall in process of reasoning to so many
follies; that we must know how large the
place must be, and how long you will appoint
the time appertaining to one communion.
And as for the place, when the multitude of
the communicants are very great, whether
may be a communion betwixt him that re-
ceiveth at the altar in our lady chapel in
Paul’s, and him that receiveth in the lowest
place of the west end of Paul’s church? If
there may, why are they not partakers of
one communion that receive in two divers
churches in London, not so far distant the
one from the other, as our lady chapel is
from the west end of Paul’s? And if they
cannot, let us know why; and have some
scripture for proof thereof. If they may,
why may not the communicants be par-
takers of one communion in three churches ;
and why not be partakers of one communion
in four or five churches no further distant ?
If not, limit you then the furthest distance

‘ that a communion may be had in, and bring

AN APOLOGY

CAP. VIII.
A.

in scriptures, doctors, or any councils to
prove the limitation, and we will cry creake1.
And in like manner we may reason for the
appointment of time. Appoint you the
longest time that a communion may be had,
and shew some good evidence for your limi-
tation. And likewise we will cry creake.
You drive men to these trifles that the world
may know you hang in nifels?.

Erasmus Roterodamus, in his epistle
that he wrote against false gospellers, re-
porteth how they were wont in the old
time in the primitive church, to deliver
every one the sacrament in their hands to
bear home with them and receive it when
their devotion served. Olim (saith he) cor-
pus domini dabatur in manu, ut domi, cum
vellent, sumerent qui accepissent®. ‘The
Lord’s body in old time was delivered into
folks’ hands, to the intent that they who had
taken it might receive it when they would.”
When divers people took the Lord’s body
in their hands to receive it at home in their
several houses when their devotion served
them to receive it, are any yet so unwise to
think, that they that so received it, were
either in one place, considering their houses
were several, or at any one time, considering
the variety of their devotions, wills, pur-
poses, and trade of life? Do you not see
in these few words, that the partakers of

1 Crie creake, i.e. confess that we are in error.]

: Nifels, i.e. things a, naught. }

3 Desip. ERrAsMri ist. in Pseudevangelicos.
Op. ed. Lug. Bat. 1706. Tom. x. col. 1585. But for

manu read manum. }

OF PRIVATE MASS.

any one communion were not wont to be
clogged to receive it in any place or at any
one especial time? Do not you manifestly
hear a reservation of the sacrament confessed
here? And whereas it was delivered in
their hands, as wine is not, understand you
not thereby a communion under one kind ?
But you will say it was but Erasmus’ re-
port; but I say he reported it as he found
in ancient writers. And Erasmus, pardie,
was wont to be a great man amongst you:
and do you so little esteem him now? You
have overrun him (I grant), as you have
done Luther, that was once your God.
Erasmus is not the first father of this
report. But Tertullian himself, which flou-
rished not long after the apostles’ time, in
his second book that he wrote to his wife,
reporteth no less. How that the christian
wife kept it close from her husband, being
a Paynim, that she received every morning
secretly before meat. And if it so happed
that he espied it, that he would think it
were bread: and not that which christian
men took it to be. Non sciet maritus quid
secreto ante omnem cibum gustes. Ht st
sciverit, panem non illum credit esse qua
dicitur!. “Thy husband shall not know
what thou dost eat secretly before thy meat.
And if he do know it, he believeth that it
is bread, and not he whom we call it.”
Ponder these words well, and see whether
it agreeth not with Erasmus’ report. When
the christian wife did secretly receive the

| holy sacrament, was there any company re-

[? Tertutu. Ad uxorem, Lib. 1. c. 5.]

AN APOLOGY

ceived with her? Can a thing done in
company, be secret? Or could she keep
close from the Paynim, her husband, that
thing that should be often practised in any
open assembly? Were not, think you, the
Paynims, that at that time were the greater |
number, diligent to search what the Chris-
tians did? Seemeth it not in her secret
receiving before all meats, that she reserved
the sacrament at home, to receive it when
she would? And where Tertullian saith,
that if it chanced that her husband knew
what she eat, he would think it to be bread,
(making no mention, he would think it to
be wine) and not the very body of Christ,
as the Christians do confess. Furthermore,
seemeth not this woman to have received it
under one kind? For her husband that saw
her eat the form of bread, that was wont to
be first received, would soon have perceived
when she drank the form of wine, that
should be immediately received after. To
conclude, it appeareth by these old writers,
that this woman received alone, without any
company to receive with her. And that she
reserved the sacrament with her at home, to
receive at her own house when she list. And
last of all, that she received under one kind.
St Cyprian also, the great clerk and
glorious martyr, touching the reservation
of the holy sacrament, in the first sermon
De Lapsis, telleth of a woman which re-
served the sacrament in her coffer at home,
that went about unreverently to open the
coffer: how a fire rose up from thence, and
so feared her, that she durst not to touch it.

OF PRIVATE MASS.

eEOowroOO—eeeee err aESES-ee,E,ECECECEe a
eS Ss = - i
. = SF See ee

car
3
4
La
“*
;

His words be these: Cum quedam arcam
suam, in qua domini sanctum fuit, manibus
indignis tentasset aperire, igne inde surgente
deterrita est ne auderet attingere!. ‘* When
a certain woman (saith he) unworthily es-
sayed to open her own coffer, wherein the
holy body of our Lord was, a fire rose
thence, and feared her that she durst not
touch it at all.” See you not yet where
Erasmus learned that the lay-people took
the sacrament in their hands and reserved
it at home, to receive it reverently when
their devotion served? Hath not Tertullian
reported the same? Doth not St Cyprian
in the former words import the same? The
woman had the sacrament in her coffer at
home: and will you deny the reservation ?
She came unreverently to open the coffer,
and to receive the sacrament, being alone:
and will you suppress the sole receiving ?
The fire rose up from thence, and for fear
she touched it not: would God have wrought
this miracle, if the sacrament had been no-
thing else but common bread when it was
reserved ?

Cyril, that ancient father, saith, that it
is not only folly to deny the reservation,
but a very madness indeed. He writeth to
Calosirius, that they are mad that say, the
body of Christ remaineth not in such por-
tions consecrated, as are kept to the next
day after the consecration. Insaniwnt rgitur
dicentes (saith he) mysticam benedictionem a
sanctificatione cessare, si quae reliquiw gus

[} Cypr. De Lapsis. Op. ed. Fell. Oxon. 1682.

q P. 1. p. 182, 3.)

AN APOLOGY

remanserint in sequentem diem. Non enim
mutabitur sacrosanctum corpus Christi, sed
virtus, benedictio et vivificativa gratia magis
in eo est’. “* They are then mad that say,
the mystical benediction or blessing leaveth
from the sanctification, if any leaving remain
of it till the next day. For the very holy
body of Christ shall not be changed. But the
power and virtue and the lively quickening
grace is continually abiding in it without
company to receive.” .
When ye hear Chrysostom tell of the daily
sacrifice ; when you hear the ancient father,
Cyrillus, call them mad that deny the reserva-
tion; when ye hear him say plainly and flatly,
that there is no alteration in the very holy
body of Christ, though it be kept, and the
virtue, and full power of the consecration, and
the lively quickening grace doth continue still
in the holy portions that are reserved ; when
St Cyprian, that holy martyr, maketh report
of the holy sacrament reserved at home in
the woman’s coffer, to receive when her lust,
when devotion served her: and when he
sheweth that God wrought the miracle in
the stirring of the fire from it, because she
thought to use it unreverently, to cause her
to forbear; when Tertullian afore that
agreeth with the same; and when Erasmus
[! Akobw dé Set eis dyracpdv dmpaxrety paciv
THY pvoTiKiy evroyiay, ei éropévot Aeiavov abtijs

els érépav rjuépav. Maivovra dé ravta héyorres*
ov yap aAXowovTaAL Xpictds, obd8 TS KyLOV abToU
cHpa pmetaBrnOjocerat, ddr’ Wf THs ebdoylas Ob-
vauts Kal 4 Cworro.ds Xapis dinvenis fi év
avT@.—CYRILL. ALEX. Epist. ad Calosyrium preefix,
libro Advers. Anthropomorphitas, Op. ed. Auberti.

Lutet. 1638. Tom. vi. p. 865.]

OF PRIVATE MASS.

Roterodamus, a man famous in his time, re-
{ cordeth the matter as he had learned it of
these holy fathers and other: that the peo-
ple received it in their hands, received it at
home, received it when every man saw his
time: Shall any man continue so impudent
to deny that ever people used the sole
receiving without company, or deny the
reservation? The scripture saith, Jn ore
duorum vel trium, &c. Two or three wit-
nesses are able to try any matter: and espe-
cially such witnesses as these are, men of
holy life, ancient fathers of great learning,
called forth to witness the truth from every
quarter of the world, some from Asia, some
from Africa, some from Europa, &c.

What say you to Satyrus, that hanged
the holy sacrament about his neck in a stole,
when he went to the sea? What say you to
the great clerk, St Ambrose, bishop of Milan,
that praised him greatly for his so doing??
Appeared not there a reservation? And I
trow, under one kind, unless your brain will

{! Quid igitur observantiam ejus erga Dei cultum
predicem? Qui priusquam perfectioribus esset initi-
atus mysteriis, in naufragio constitutus, cum ea qua
veheretur navis, scopuloso illisa vado, et urgentibus
hine atque inde fluctibus solveretur, non mortem
metuens, sed ne vacuus mysterii exiret e vita, quos
initiatos esse cognoverat, ab his divinum illud fide-
lium sacramentum poposcit: non ut curiosos oculos
inferret arcanis, sed ut fidei suze consequeretur aux-
ilium. Etenim ligari fecit in orario, et orarium in-
volvit collo, atque ita se dejecit in mare, non requi-
rens de navis compage resolutam tabulam, cui
supernatans juvaretur, quoniam fidei solius arma
quesierat. Itaque his se tectum atque munitum
satis credens, alia auxilia non desideravit.—AMBROS.

| De excessu fratris sui Satyri. Lib. 1. § 43. Op. ed.
| Bened. Paris. Tom. 11. col. 1125.]

AN APOLOGY

CAP RIX

serve you to enclose wine in a stole, as mine
will not.

What say you by Syrapion, who, being
in despair of his life, sent for the priest to
minister him the sacrament in the night
season. But when the priest lay sick in
his bed, and could not go himself, he took
Syrapion’s lad the sacrament in his hand,
and bade him moist it, and so minister it
into the mouth of his sick master. The
priest was sick and could not rise. The
lad came in the night time, the priest de-
livered the sacrament into his hand, he bade
him moist it, and give it to the sick’, And
doth not this prove, both that the priest had
reserved it, and the moisting thereof that
the sick man took it under one kind, and
when he sent no more than would serve the
sick man, was not there the houselling of
one alone without company ?

The twelfth canon of Nicene council
provideth for such as are like to depart this
life, to receive the sacrament or they depart.
And if any such that is in that case houselled,
chance to recover, then to be amongst the

{! The narrative is given by Dionysius, bishop of
Alexandria, in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch,
and preserved from thence by Eusebius in his Ecclesi-
astical History, Bk. v1.c.44. The words upon which
our author’s argument depends, and which are criti-
cized below in the “Answer,” are these :—Bpayv tis
si aha éwédwkev TH Taidapiw, dmoBpé-at
KeXevoas* Kal TH TpéoBuTY KaTa TOU oTOMaTOS
émiotagéat. And on his return :—déBpetev 6 rats,
Kal dua Te évéxee TH OTOmaTL* Kal piKpdv éKetVvos
KkataBpox0icas eiOéws drédwxe Td wvedua.—Ev-

SEB. Hist. Eccl. Lib. vi. c. 44. ed. Reading. Cant.
1720. Tom. 1, p. 317, 318.]

ae SS

DORA Z
ae

gee

Se er

OF PRIVATE MASS.

29 |

communicants’ prayer. The words be these :
De iis qui recedunt ex corpore, antiqua legis
regula observabitur etiam nunc. Ita ut si quis
forte recedat ex corpore, necessario vite suce
viatico non defraudetur. Quod si desperatus
aliquis recepta communione supervixerit, sit
inter eos gui sola oratione communicant’.
‘Concerning those that depart this life, the
old rule of the law shall be kept now also.
So that any be like to depart this life, he be
not deceived of his necessary voyage-provi-
sion for his life. If he that was in despair
of life, after that he received the communion
chance to recover, let him be amongst them
that do communicate by prayers only.” The
holy ancient council of all the learned fathers
at Nice, thought it convenient that such as
were like to die, should be houselled before
their departing: and could this rule be
inviolably kept amongst so many casualties
of sickness and sudden infections and divers
other chances that fall at divers and sundry
times, both by day and night, unless the
holy sacrament were reserved? And unless
every man received as necessity served alone
without company, when necessity so re-
quired? Sometime the priest, as Chrysostom
saith, in the celebration of the daily sacrifice
receiveth without the people: and sometime

[} ILept rev poevetcerem 6 Tada.ds Kal Kavovt-
Kos vomos uAayXOijoeTat Kal viv, woTe et Tis é£O-
Oeviot, TOU deorotiko’ épodiov py drooTepeial’
el 0¢ atoyvwoleis Kai Kotwwvias TUXWY, Kal TpOC-
popas peTacyxwyv, waddw év Tots Gaow é€eTacbein,
éoTW META TWV KOWWWVOUVTWY THS EedXnS POvNS.—

_ | Synop. Nic. Can. 13. Apud Gelasii Cyzic. Comm.

_ | Act. Nic. Concil. ed. Commelin. 1604. fol. p. 46.]

AN APOLOGY

CAP. X.

the people without the priest: and some-
time one alone without any company at all,
as we have at large shewed afore.

In the bishop’s and priest’s absence, the
deacons received alone, if they were disposed
to receive; as the fourteenth canon of the
ancient and old council of Nice hath taken
order. The words be these: Pervenit ad
sanctum concilium, quod in locis quibusdam
et ciwitatibus presbyteris diaconi sacramenta |
porrigant. Hoc neque regula, neque consue-
tudo tradit, ut vi, qui offerendi sacrificit po~
testatem non habent, hiis qui offerunt corpus
Christ porrigant. Sed et illud innotuit,
quod quidam diaconi etiam ante episcopum
sacramenta sumant. Hoc ergo omnia am-
putentur, et accipiant secundum ordinem
post presbyteros ab episcopo, vel a presbytero,
sacram communionem. Quod si non fuerit
im presenti vel episcopus, vel’ presbyter, tune
ipst proferant et edant'. “Tt is reported to

[' The translation of this canon by Dionysius
Exiguus, as given by Hardouin, stands thus :—Per-
venit ad sanctum concilium, quod, in locis quibusdam
et civitatibus, presbyteris sacramenta diaconi porri-
gant. Hoc neque regula, neque consuetudo tradidit:
ut hi qui offerendi sacrificii non habent potestatem,
his qui offerunt, corpus Christi porrigant. Sed et
illud innotuit, quod quidam diacones etiam ante
episcopos sacramenta sumunt. Hee ergo omnia
amputentur, et maneant diacones intra suam pro-
priam mensuram: scientes quia episcoporum quidem
ministri sunt, presbyteris autem inferiores. Accipiant
ergo secundum ordinem post presbyteros ab episeopo,
vel a presbytero, sacram communionem. Quod si
non fuerit in presenti vel episcopus, vel presbyter,
tunc ipsi proferant et edant. Sed nec sedere quidem
licet in medio presbyterorum diacones: extra regu-
lam enim est, ut hoc fiat. Si quis autem non vult.

OF PRIVATE MASS,

the holy council, that in certain places and
cities the deacons deliver the sacrament to
the priests. Neither rule, neither custom,
taught this, that they that have no autho-
rity to offer sacrifice should deliver the body
of Christ to them that offer it. And an-
other thing also came to our ears, that there
are certain deacons who receive the sacra-
ment before the bishop. Wherefore let all
such things be cut off, let them receive the
holy communion, orderly, after the priests, of
the bishops or priest. And if the bishop or
the priest be absent, let themselves bring it

forth and eat it.” If the deacons, as it ap-

peareth by this canon, that had no authority
to consecrate, and to offer the sacrifice of
Christ’s body and blood, might, in the
bishop’s or priest’s absence, fetch forth the

his sufficiens esse post hance definitionem, cesset esse
diaconus.—Hard. Concil. Tom. 1. p. 329, 30. The
Greek, as given by Gelasius Cyzicenus, (which is
almost identical with that of Hardouin ) stands thus:
—H)Oev eis tiv ayiav cal pweyadnv Lvvddov, bre
éy Tiot Toros } Wodeot TpecBuTépols THY evXa-
pioriav of Aidkovor diddaciv, Srrep ovTE 6 Kavev
ote 4 cuiJera Tapédwxe, Tos éLovciavy py éxov-
Tas TposHpépev, TovTOVS Tols TpoTHéepovar OLddvat
TO Copa TOU XpioTov. Kakeivo de éydwpicbn, drt
non tTwes THv Ataxdvwy Kai mpd Tav émioxdTav
THS evXaptoTias dmtTovTa. Tavta ody mdvra
mepinpeta0w" Kal éumevétwoav of Ardkovor tots
idiots pétpois, elddtes STL TOU pév émicKdaov
brnpérat cial, Trav O& TpecBuTépwy éEXdtTovs TUY-
Xdvouct. AauBavérwoav dé Kata Tatw tiv ev-
XaploTiav peta Tovs mpceoBuTépous, } TOU émicKkd-
mov avtots duddvtos 7} Tov mpecButépov. ‘ANXa
pire xabjobat év péow tav mpecButépwy éLéoTw

| tots Ataxovots* wapd xavova ydp Kal wapa tééw
2 ‘ LA _
| éori +O yivouevov. Bi dé tis pr Oédor revOapyxerv,

Kal peta tovs Spous weratebw tas AtaKxovias.—

Can. 18. Gelas. Cyzic. Cone. Nic. ed. 1604. p. 47.]

AN APOLOGY

sacrament, and receive it, can you deny but
it was reserved? And that the same grace
of Christ’s body remained in the holy sa-
crament after the consecration in the bishop's
and priest’s absence? Which could by no
means be consecrated, but by the bishop’s
and priest’s presence. I will not cavil with
you upon the term above rehearsed in the
canon, concerning the deacons, that they
might, in the bishop’s and priest’s absence,
bring forth the sacrament and eat it: which
is proper to the form of bread and not to
the form of wine: and thereby declare that
the deacons received it but in one kind.
Notwithstanding I might as well stand
therein, and better too, than you stand upon
Accipite et manducate, and bibite ex hoc
omnes, to drive the sacrament immediately
without any reservation to his use, and
that at every communion there must of
necessity be a company to receive with the
priest, and every one of the lay people
ought of necessity to receive the same in
both kinds. I will not, I say, use no such
dalliance upon the word, ‘eat,’ in the canon,
as you use in, “take eat and drink all of this”
in the use of the sacrament very sophisti-
cally. But let go all such vantage upon
tittles. I am contented to use none other
proof but such as all men that have any
discretion do so evidently perceive to be so
good, that they are never able to find any
occasion in the world to control it. Such
as I have used before, for the proof of
private mass, reservation, the sole receiving,
or ministration of the sacrament in certain

a eee

OF PRIVATE MASS. 33
cases under one kind, to have been used in
the state of the primitive church.
Read St Cyprian in his fifth sermon, | CAP. XI.

De lapsis: there shall you see that the
deacon gave an infant, that had received
before part of such meats as were sacrificed
up to the idols, a portion of Christ’s blood
out of the chalice. And as soon as the
infant received it, it was wonderfully vexed,
because it was marvellous dishonour to the
blood of Christ to be poured into the mouth
that was a little before defiled with the idol’s
sacrifice. And thereby may you understand,
that the infant received the sacrament of
the deacon under the form of wine only,
and not under the form of bread. For by
that reason, if the infant had received it
under the form of bread before, being part
of the sacrament as precious as the other, it
should have been vexed very sore before
the cup had been offered it. But the first
vexation that it had was, when the deacon
gave the sacrament in form of wine. And
therefore it is evident, that the deacon gave
not the infant the sacrament under the form
of bread!. And was not this a communion

{! Cyprian’s account of the matter (to which
attention is directed below in the “Answer” ) is this :—
Puella mixta cum sanctis, precis nostre et orationis
impatiens, nunc ploratu concuti, nunc mentis estu
ceepit fluctuabunda jactari, et velut tortore cogente,
quibus poterat indiciis conscientiam facti in simplici-
bus adhue annis rudis anima fatebatur. Ubi vero
solennibus adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre pre-
sentibus. coepit, et accipientibus ceteris locus ejus
advenit, faciem suam parvula instinctu divine ma-
jestatis avertere, os labiis obturantibus premere,

[priv, mass. ]

AN APOLOGY

CHAP. XII.

under one kind only? You have heard
now, I suppose, not a word, or half word,
not one sentence, or half a sentence, as your
calling was, but many, and full proofs
against certain of your assertions. And by
these you have good cause to distrust all
the rest of your doctrine.

Thus far my leisure served me, being
otherwise occupied with business enough,
to answer in the defence of my spiritual
mother, the catholic church. Not for be- |’
cause it was our part, that are in possession,
to render any reason for our right, wherein
prescription of time out of mind is a suf-
ficient bar: but partly, because I saw your
importunity in calling upon them to strike,
that you had bound in recognisance of great
sums to be forfeited, if they had gone about
to give you any blow. So that you may
perceive well by this, that they are better
armed than you thought they were: when
I, who am nothing in comparison of the
learned doctors of this realm, being a man
of no great reading, but in stories, am yet
able thus to say in so good a matter, that I
trust you will hereafter leave your impor-
tunity of provoking so many learned men
of this realm, to shew what evidence they
have for the truth. It had been more rea-

calicem recusare. Perstitit tamen diaconus, et re-
luctanti licet, de sacramento calicis infudit. Tune
sequitur singultus et vomitus. In corpore atque ore
violato Eucharistia permanere non potuit. Sanctifi-
catus in Domini sanguine potus de pollutis visceribus
erupit; tanta est potestas Domini, tanta majestas,—
Cypr. De Lapsis. Op. ed. Fell. Ox. 1682, P.1. p. 182. ]

OF PRIVATE MASS.

| sonable, that you (that would dispossess us

of the interest we have in the true doctrine,
that the catholic church first taught us, and
hath recorded sufficiently in her practice
these fifteen hundred years and more, and
in records of writers this nine hundred years
and sixty, as yourself do seem to confess)
should shew sufficient causes, why we ought
to be dispossessed, rather than we to lay
for ourselves proofs to keep possession. I
marvel that you think it not hurt to your
side, to grant that the whole practice of the
church hath run with us this nine hundred
years and threescore : whereas, in possession
of lands, quiet. possession for the space of
one hundred years or two, putteth the case
out of all doubt.

You hang upon the state of the six hun-
dred years, that were next after Christ, and
you see how that the whole record of the
state runneth against you. ‘Tertullian is
against you ; Cyprian is against you ; Euse-
bius is against you ; Ambrose is against you ;
Cyril is against you; the holy and ancient
council of Nice is against you. And yet you
will make the people to ween, that all are
with you of that state. I have not brought
in the empty names, as apothecaries do upon
their boxes, but have shewed you what good
drugs they have. I have not cast out from
the wall any victuals in your assault, to
make a brag in penury, as many of your part
commonly use to do, as though they had
great plenty of victuals; but have brought
you unto the sight of such provision, as the
holy ancient fathers of the primitive church,

AN APOLOGY

[ Matt. xv. 4.]

such as yourselves do allow, have made for
us. But come unto the practice of the
church, and records of the fathers, of the
latter nine hundred years: they cry so
thick and threefold against you, that you
are not able to abide them. And therefore
you were wont to disgrace them all. By
what authority, I pray you, would you
have them all discredited? It savoureth of
a marvellous arrogancy, to discredit them
all. Can your doctrine creep no other ways
into credit, unless you deface the practices
of the church, and the authority of the
fathers, for the space of nine hundred years
and odd? Have you no other means to get
honour, but to dishonour so many ancient
fathers, as have written this latter nine
hundred years? Know you not the scrip-
ture, Qui maledixerit patri vel matri morte
morietur ? And what malediction is there
greater, than to blaze that our learned fa-
thers (that lived so godly in prayers, fastings,
almsdeeds, continual study of doctrine, that
hath their common agreements for the space
of nine hundred years and more) deceived
Christ’s flock, knew not the right faith, but
trained the people to the state of damnation ?

And, I pray you, if they were so many
years deceived, and yet given all the while to
spiritual exercises more than you, as it ap-
peareth by their works, or any now-a-days,
what assurance can you make us, that you do
now know the truth? Being a man far under-
neath them in all points; and one that hath
not continued here much (as I hear say) above
forty years, and not bestowed the fourth

OF PRIVATE MASS.

part of that time neither (as I hear) in study
of the scriptures or old doctors? Shall you,
with nine or ten years’ study in the matters
of doctrine, think yourself able to sit as a
judge, to control all such doctors, and the
doctrine which they have left in record for
the space of nine hundred years? No man
gave you such authority but yourself. Lu-
ther and Melancthon took upon them to be
reformers of religion in all points. But if
you mark them, they make no matter of
necessity to communicate the laity with
both kinds. They acknowledge that a ge-
neral council may take order in it, as a thing
indifferent, and having no scripture for the
proof of the necessity thereof. They con-
firm also the being of Christ’s body in a
thousand places at once, meaning therein as
the catholics mean.

If you had acquainted yourself with
Abraham and Isaac, (that said! that que-
cunque promisit Deus, potens est et facere ;
* whatsoever God promiseth, he is able to
perform it;”) or with the angel, (that said
unto Mary in as great a matter as this is,
Non est wmpossibile apud Deum omne ver-
bum; “There is no word impossible unto
God;”) as well as you have acquainted
yourself with Ismael and Agar, that see no
farther than the trade of common nature ;
or if you had marked but the very rule of
nature, how of an antecedent granted all
necessary consequence[s] do by force of reason
issue there hence, you would never put the

[* That is, Abraham with reference to Isaac.]

CAP. XIII.

(Rom. iv. 21.]

(Luke i. 37.]

AN APOLOGY

(Luke xxii. 19.]

matter in question. We find in scripture
that our Saviour said, in the consecration
of the blessed sacrament, This is my body,
that shall be deliwered for you. And when
the sense of this sentence is, as the catholic
church teacheth, the very real presence of
Christ’s body to be in the blessed sacrament,
upon this sense, once settled, many labels
do necessarily hang; not expressedly had in
scripture, but by drift of reason out of the
first verity gathered. And so did St Chry-
sostome, St Ambrose, St Basil, and St Ber-
nard, when they understood the sense of
Christ’s words concerning the consecration
to be as the holy catholic church understood
it: and not to have power in the parlour
at Jerusalem only, where the sacrament was
first instituted, but in all places, where the
thing was so practised as Christ began it.
Thereunto they saw they must needs con-
fess by drift of argument, that Christ’s body
is in divers places at once: and of the re-
mainders of the accidents, you need no other
proof, but your own senses, your eye, and
your tasting. And of the alteration of the
substance of bread, the fathers in divers ages
saw it so depend upon the first verity, that
they have omitted no variety of terms, to
express it and to bring it into the knowledge
of the world. They have transmutation,
transelementation, mutation, conversion, fac-
tion, alteration, transubstantiation, and di-
vers other such, that are not to be rehearsed
now. You have taken upon you to control
the council of Constance already: but now
you will control the great council of Lateran,

OF PRIVATE MASS. 39

| where were so many learned clerks as there
_|-were never more gathered together; and
_ | the council of Valence, and the council of
Rome, sub Nicolao, and the general council
of Florence, and the council of Basil!: in
_ | the which all your errors, concerning the
holy sacrament, are overthrown.

Concerning your doubt how Christ’s body
is in divers places at once, sithen you believe
no council that hath determined that matter,
| nor ancient fathers, Greeks nor Latins, I
| will send you to your great god, Luther, in
a little book that he wrote against the
Zwinglians, of the sense of the words of the
supper of Christ. They yet remain unde-
faced. There he answereth you at the full.
Or else to Brentius, that great Cain, in the
exposition of the article of the ascension in
_ | the first of the Acts, where he interpreteth
_ | thereof at the full, though very far in divers
_ | points from the sense of the church. Yet
may he not suffer that blind reason of yours
to have his force in no case. It is but a
very fond dalliance to brawl upon the labels
before you agree upon the original verity.
The true sense of this little sentence, 7’his
is my body that shall be delivered for you,
is the root and the original of all such labels
as we teach, not mentioned in scripture ex-
pressly, but boulted out by drift of argument,
as these are, that offend you so sore.

When the master saith to his servant, Make | A similitude

for unwritten
verities.

[} Council of Constance, a. 1414 to 1418. Late-
ran, a. 1215. Valence, a. 1248. Rome, under Nico-
las Il., a. 1059. Florence, a. 1439. Basil, a. 1431

| to. 1443.)

' AN APOLOGY

ready that I may dine ; he speaketh nothing in
these words of scumming of the pot, of clean
water for the potage, of the herbs to be
chopped, of scalding and drawing the capons,
of making a fire, of hewing of wood, of lay-
ing the cloth, and other things necessary
belonging to his dinner. And yet, if the
servant would leave the pot unscummed,
herbs ungathered, make potage with stink- |
ing water, put the capon upon the broche,
feathers, guts and all, because his master
made no express mention of the particular
ordering of all these: I ween no man would
allow his wit or honesty. Because in his
master’s first commandment all such neces-
saries are implied. And so we answer
you as your mother the catholic church
hath taught us. We need not to shew you
of accidents, remaining without any subject,
nor of Christ’s body being in divers places
at once, nor of the adoration of the holy
sacrament, nor of many other trifling doubts
you make: because all such doubts are
answered to the full, in the original verity
of Christ’s words, being in the nature of the
verity necessarily implied. As these are,
against the which you may kick, till you
be weary: but it lieth not in you to alter
the nature of Christ’s own words.

If you had found in the scripture, spoken
by Christ concerning the blessed sacrament,
This is not my body, but the figure of my
body, being absent in substance, and only pre-
sent to your imaginations, by the sight of the
bread; you might have triumphed and blowed
up your horn lustily in every pulpit, and

OF PRIVATE MASS.

made your avaunt, that you had been able
to control all Christendom. But now the

———————————————————eO

letter is very plain against you, and the
sense of the letter also, as the fathers do
record in all ages, and general councils too:
as may appear by your own mistrust for
the space of the last nine hundred years
and odd.

I take God to judge, I wrote not this
for any malice to such as are otherwise
bent. I pity them rather, and daily pray
for them, that they may embrace the catholic
faith. But when I perceived Golias in
his bravery, having trust in his big bones
and strong weapons, bragging many times,
as though there were none of the Israelites
able to match him: notwithstanding there
are very many that could have handled
him better than I, being a man of small
learning, troubled with much business; yet
I thought it my duty, for the honour of my
mother, the catholic church, to hurl out four
or five stones in David’s sling against this
champion: not to hurt him in the forehead,
as David did Golias, but to crush in pieces
certain untruths that he taught; wishing
him as well to do as I would myself; and
all my countrymen of England to beware,
lest they fall into the snares and traps that
our ghostly enemy layeth abroad every-
where, not only to hurt their bodies, but
to hurl down both body and soul into the
deep dungeon of hell. The which I beseech
God most heartily give all men grace to
avoid. Amen.

An Answere tn
Defence of the truth.

Against the
Apolo gte

of
| Vribate
! Masse.
4
| LONDINI.
Mens. Nouéb.
f 1562.

[The above title is in a compartment with Lucretia in a
_ medallion at the bottom. }

Pu)

THE CHIEF POINTS TOUCHED IN THIS
DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH.

Against private mass, or sole receiving by the
minister, in the common place of prayer.

Why the doctors call the sacrament of the Lord’s
supper by the name of oblation or sacrifice.

Against communion under one kind.
Of reservation of the sacrament.

Against the arguments of multitude and long con-
tinuance of time.

Against the alleging of the authority and name
of the church.

What is to be attributed to the ancient fathers.

Of real presence and interpretation of Christ’s
words, Hoc est corpus, &c.

THE PREFACE

THE READER.

Ir is well known to a great number,
partly by presence in hearing, partly by
writing set forth ofthe same, that a worthy »
learned man and bishop of this realm’,
stoutly indeed, as the matter required, and
clerkly also, aslearning and knowledge taught
him, did openly protest in certain sermons,
not to the furtherance of untruth, as malice
carpeth, but to the confusion of falsehood, as
| the end proveth ; that, if any of those things
which he then rehearsed, could be proved of
the contrary side by any sufficient authority
of the scriptures, old doctors, and ancient
councils, or by any allowed example of the
| primitive church, then he would be con-
tented to subscribe and yield to their doc-
trine. This his doing, as no less was to be
| looked for, some men depraved, many dis-
praised, all they misliked, that maintained
such superstitious errors, as false teaching
hath trained people in, the space of certain
hundred years. And indeed, seeing they
| heard their doctrine so plainly defaced, and
| their wilful misleading of christian men
_|so openly to be noted, a man may think
| they had good cause to startle at the matter,
| and somewhat to look about them, lest they
[} John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury. ]

THE PREFACE

seemed altogether careless. Wherefore, as
divers have diversly shewed their misliking,
so one of that party hath in writing privily
spread abroad an answer to the foresaid offer
or protestation for private masses: wherein
he both persuadeth himself, and would have
other also to believe, that he hath so fully
satisfied the party’s request, as it may seem
great folly, and ashe termeth it, impudency,
any longer to stay upon it. One of the
copies of this answer by occasion, as it for-
tuned, not many months since, lighted into
my hands: which, I understand, is so spread
abroad in divers places of this realm, as there
be few mislikers of the truth, but they have
it, and make such account of it, as a great
number of the unlearned sort stay their con~
sciences thereupon.

Who the author is, or what manner of
man, I neither know, nor can guess more,
than he witnesseth of himself in the entrance
of this treatise; where he signifieth, that
once he embraced that religion, which he now
detesteth and writeth against. In that part
methinketh he doth deal, as fond men some-
time are wont to do; which, to displease their
enemies, stick not to hurt themselves also.
So he, to discredit the doctrine that he is re-
volted from, giveth such testimony of his own
naughty life and conscience, as he would be
loth to hear at any man’s mouth but his
own. ‘“ All that time,” saith he, “I neither
regarded God, nor good religion, nor any
good conscience beside.” What malice it is
to charge the doctrine, that by hypocrisy he
professed, with the cause of his evil doing, I

TO THE READER.

| will not declare with such words as the mat-
| ter requireth. This much I will say, that he
' | learned this of old Adam’s great counsellor:
_ | who, at the beginning, being blamed for his
|| disobedience, seemed to burden God himself
| with the cause of it, and excused his own
' | folly by that thing, which his Maker had
'| given him to his comfort and commodity.
| In like manner, when this man’s conscience,
4 as it seemeth by bis own words, accused him
_ | of lewd living and lack of the fear of God,
| to excuse his own ill disposed mind, he
| casteth the fault upon the doctrine of the
' | gospel, which God did open unto him un-
_|doubtedly to his great commodity, if he
_ | would have taken it. And under this pre-
_ | tence, both forsaketh it himself, and by his
_ | example exhorteth other to eschew it. But
| as the wicked life of a man, to his own great
| harm, may be a blot to the religion that he
_ | professeth : so God forbid it should be count-
'jed a full reproof of the same, or a just
_| cause to be of all other rejected. If it were
| so, men should refuse Christianity, because
+} divers, not of the basest sort, but of the
| heads of the church, as their own histories
| witness, have been of horrible and wicked
| life. But we must think, that the hypocrisy
| and traitorous covetousness of Judas and his
| fellows is a confusion to themselves, but no
| just reproach to Christ that they follow, or
| to his doctrine that they seem to profess. I
} will judge and hope better of this writer, to
| whom with all my heart I wish much more
| good ; trusting that God shall once again
| open his heart to receive the truth, which I

THE PREFACE

cannot but think God hath taken from him
in punishment of that naughty conscience,
that he witnesseth hath been in himself.
But, whatsoever he be, let him stand or
fall to his Lord God. I will not take upon
me to judge him, neither would I have spo-
ken this much of him, but that he doth
odiously excuse his own evil mind by the
good doctrine of Christ’s gospel. My pur-
pose is to confute his doctrine, I will not
ineddle with his person. I intend to answer
his cavilling at other men’s words and do- |
ings: I mind not to discredit or deface his |
estimation or honesty.
And yet in this point I know some may |
judge me presumptuous and arrogant, that I |
seem to take upon me his quarrel, who is far |
better able to answer for himself than I am.
But I would desire those which so think, to —
consider ; first, that this is a common quarrel, |
touching not only him that is named, but all |
other that either teacheth or believeth as he |
doth : secondly, that he against whom this |
writing is directed, either knoweth not that
any such thing is spread, or, if he do know
it, either thinketh it not worthy answer of
itself, or else hath not at this present such
leisure as he may intend to answer it:
thirdly and chiefly, that by private con-—
ference with certain persons I understand, —

perhaps more than either he or any other . |

doth think, how much this treatise is
esteemed among many, which otherwise
happily might be persuaded to embrace the |
gospel. Therefore I have been moved the |
sooner myself, in such sort as I might, to |

——-

TO THE READER.

| shape an answer unto it. For to all such
_ | of the contrary opinion, as have fear of God,
_ j and stay upon conscience rather than self-
. { will, I acknowledge myself in christian cha-
| rity to owe this much of duty, as that I
| should, to my power, travail to lift this
| stumbling-block out of their way, that it
_ | may not be a let or stay unto them to come
-\ unto Christ, at this day by his word calling
them. Wherefore, gentle reader, seeing thou
dost understand my meaning and the occa-
sion of my doing, I will cease any more to
trouble thee, and will turn the residue of my
talk unto the author of this writing ; with
whom I will make my entry there, where
he first beginneth to confute the reasons
that were alleged, why account should not
be made to doctor Cole of that religion that
now is taught. In this part I will be the
shorter, partly because those things be suf-
__ | ficiently answered in the conference already
| published, although this writer seemeth to
_ | dissemble it; partly, because the questions
__| have more captiousness of words than profit
' | of good matter.

= ie = - :
—-

[pRiv. Mass. ]

CAP. 16

THE DEFENCE

THE TRUTH.

WHERE you reason against my lord of |
Salisbury for refusing to bring proof of his |’
doctrine because he was a bishop, and at
that time preached before the Queen’s grace
and her council; you deal somewhat like
with him, as you do afterward with the
doctors that you do allege. For you first
bring your own sense unto their words, and
so allege them for your purpose, whereas
they mean nothing less. So in the words
of the first epistle to doctor Cole, you apply
your own sense unto them, and after reason
against it, as though it were his meaning.
Whether this be to be counted a cavilling,
rather than a confuting, I leave to the judg-
ment of other. He never said simply, that
he should make no reckoning of his doctrine,
because he was a bishop: for he doth the
contrary daily, as well in his preaching as
otherwise. He never said that the consent
of the prince and realm was a sufficient proof
of doctrine in christian religion, as you
would have men think of him by your rea-
soning against him. He said this; that, for
so much as he was called to the state of a
bishop, and at that time uttered before the
prince and her council that doctrine, which
was confirmed by the authority of the whole
realm, he might seem to do unadvisedly, if

FS ee EF x

Sas

ae ty =e

i
if
Ny

}
0
bi’
i
Ke
.
ie
a
'
a
in
i

and especially such a subject as alway hath
professed himself to mislike it, and at that
time, under pretence of learning, but indeed
-quarrelling, required a proof thereof. Were

}1t good reason, think you, that a magistrate
| at the demand of every subject should bring

reason to prove any law published by the
prince to be good, which the same subject
would protest to be an evil and unjust law,
and therefore would not obey it? If that
should be so, a gap might be opened to every
busy person to pick a quarrel against the law.
If that should be so, beside other inconve-
niences, he might seem to submit the judg-
ment of the prince and realm to the mis-
liking of one wayward subject. Which could

| not be done without great impeachment to

the prince’s authority, and wisdom of the

whole state of the commonweal. That this
was his meaning, it may appear in those

words, where he saith he might not do it
without farther licence. Wherefore in this

part of his answer, knowing with whom he
had to do, he respected his doctrine, as it

was a law confirmed by the prince and

/states of the realm, and not as it might be

| a controversy of religion before the law pub-
lished.

_ Moreover in that he is orderly called to
the state of a bishop (say you what you will
to the contrary), he is in possession of the

truth ; and therefore it were not reason, that

q | he should be requested first to shew his evi-
_ | dence and take upon him the person of the
_ | plaintiff: especially toward those men that

THE DEFENCE OF THE TRUTH. 51
he should make account thereof to a subject, A just cause
of his refu-

sal.

THE DEFENCE

make exception to his possession, and claim
the right thereof themselves. He ought not
lightly to give over to you in this point ; he
ought to acknowledge and stand in defence
of that benefit, whereby, through God's
word and authority of the prince, he is set
in open possession of that which you before
usurped. Seeing then it is the plaintiff’s
part first to shew evidence, and he now (God
be thanked) standeth with other as defend-
ant; you do disorderly and contrary to rea-
son to will him to do that, which by order
yourself should first do. He proffered openly
to give over to you, if you could shew any
reasonable evidence for your part out of the
scriptures, doctors, or councils: if you refuse
it, all men will think that either you have no
evidence at all to shew, or else that which you
have, is such as you are well assured will
not abide the trial.

In like manner do you mistake his rest-
ing upon the negative. You write not against
his meaning, but against that yourself con-
ceiveth to be in his words. He said not
absolutely, no negative proposition could
be proved, neither doth D. Cole find so
much fault with him for denying that a
negative might be proved, (for himself had

so said before,) but with this, that to grieve |

his adversary he would stay upon the nega-
tive, and put you of the contrary part to
prove the affirmative. Which was upon
good reason done at that time, to the end, as
I think, that he might press upon you some-
what nearer! than other before had used to
[This word in the original edition is printed narre.]

OF THE TRUTH.

do. For whereas you have untruly borne the
world in hand, and make your avaunt con-
tinually, that the church hath taught as you
do these fifteen hundred years, that the holy
scriptures, ancient fathers, and councils do
make altogether for your doctrine and
against ours; he both wisely and Jearnedly
did see, that there was no way so fit either
to drive you from this avaunt, or to declare
it evidently to be false, as to rest upon this
true negative, that you have no sufficient
proof out of the authorities before rehearsed.
For thereby he should either force you to
shew what you have, which in effect is
nothing, or else to confess that the chief
points of your doctrine by him recited be,
as they are indeed, clean beside the word of
God and example of the primitive church:
or, if you would not for shame confess it,
yet that all men in the end might perceive
it is so, when that you neither would nor
could bring any sufficient confirmation of
the same by the scriptures, old fathers,
ancient councils, or allowed example of the
church by the space of six hundred years.

I will declare the matter by example of
those things that yourself taketh in hand to
prove. All the preachers of this time teach,
that the right use of the Lord’s supper is to
be celebrated in manner of a communion or
feast with company, and that as well the laity
as clergy should receive under both kinds.
This doctrine they say is according to God’s
{| word and use of the primitive church and
_|not the contrary, For proof thereof they
_ jallege out of the scripture the evangelists

The cause
why he might
justly rest
upon the
negative,

THE DEFENCE

and St Paul, in which appeareth evidently
that company was, and both kinds were in-
differently used, and no signification at all of
the contrary. For the primitive church
they bring Justine, Dionysius, Cyprian,
Chrysostom and other, declaring in plain
words the use of their time to have been so:
and affirm that the same ancient fathers
never make any evident mention that the
contrary manner was used and allowed in
the common administration of the sacra-
ment. Contrariwise, you on the other part
affirm, that the priest in midst of the con-
gregation may commonly consecrate and
receive alone, and that the laity in the com-
munion should receive only the bread and
not the cup of the Lord. This doctrine,
say you, is according to the scripture and
example of the old church ; and they that
will say the contrary, you count and use as
heretics. But when they call upon you to
shew some sufficient proof thereof out of the
scripture and doctors, you refuse it, cavil-
ling and bidding them prove the contrary.
Which is alway the shift of them that have
nothing to say.

This is the negative that was stayed
upon, that you are not able to prove by
the scripture or fathers, that ever the priest
used in the church to celebrate alone, as you
do in private mass, or that the people in
communion was commonly served with the
bread only, and not with the cup; and you
would have him to prove this negative. As
if you should say unto him, Sir, do you
prove that we be not able to bring any suf-

OF THE TRUTH.

ficient testimony out of the fathers. Surely
the proof of this negative can be none other
but to hold open the books of the bible
and doctors to you, and will you to read
them over, and see that there is no such
proof for your part. If any of your part
should say to one of us, as you do in your
writing, that no sentence in all the scripture
doth justify that we do herein teach, and
the party to whom it is spoken would will
you to prove it; would you not think he
did unlearnedly ? would you not think that
either he did of purpose seek a shift to cavil,
or else indeed had nothing to say? Or if
you do think it reasonable, I will learn at
your hand how you could prove that nega-
tive by all your law or logic? I do scant
think you will say, that a man may be
orderly required to prove such mere nega-
tives. When a negative, or what kind of
negatives, may be proved, I leave to be dis-
cussed in some other place, as a question
more meet for sophisters in the parvise
school at Oxford, than for divines in matters
of weight and importance.

After your reasoning against the causes,
that, as you say, were alleged not to prove
the negative, as it were to lay the ground of
your controversy for private masses, ye begin
with a distinction, that this term private
may be taken after divers sorts; either as
contrary to common to many for the com-
modity thereof, or else as sole receiving by a
| priest alone without any company. In the
| first way, you say ye never affirmed mass

CAP. II.

An answer
to the dis-

tinction of
private.

THE DEFENCE

to be private, but to pertain to the behalf of
all states and sorts of men, whatsoever they
be. Indeed I were to blame and very inju-
rious unto you, if I would deny that ye
have been very bountiful in bestowing the
benefit of your mass; and especially when
money was brought in abundantly. For
then ye applied it unto high, to low; to
princes, to private persons, to absent, to
present; to quick, to dead, to heaven, to
hell, yea and to purgatory too: over and
beside that ye made it a salve for all sores,
and a remedy for all mischiefs. Here were
a large field for me to descant upon the
divers abuses that you applied it unto, con-
trary to Christ’s institution and ordinance:
but that any christian heart may rather
yearn and lament to remember so ungodly
profanation of the holy sacrament, than to
seek occasion pleasantly to dally in the re-
hearsal and deluding of the infinite vanities
thereof. The other signification of private
in sole receiving by the priest, not imbarring
any that is willing and ready to be partaker
with him, ye say the catholic church doth
and alway hath taught. And here upon
making your proposition, ye require a proof
of the affirmative included in the negative ;
that is, that every priest or any other ought,
when he receiveth, to have a company to
receive with him.

Why, sir, is this the trust that you
would seem to have in the truth of your
cause? is this the plain and sound deal-
ing that ye after profess to use? is this
the leaving of all shifts, whereby ye may

OF THE TRUTH.

| seem to cavil, rather than stay upon the
_ \chief proofs of your matter? Who seeth
not, that even in the very entrance, mis-
trusting your quarrel, ye seek a shift as it
were by policy to help that which in the
open field is not able to defend itself? This
was no part of the challenge (as you term
it), This is not that ye pretend so earnestly
_|to prove. The matter is of private masses,
and you make your issue in sole receiving.
Is there no difference, think you, between
sole receiving and private mass? Doth every
one that receiveth alone say a private mass?
Then may not only priests say mass, but
also, by your own authorities after brought
in, laymen and women also. And yet your
reasoning in the residue of your treatise is
such, as if it were a sufficient proof of pri-
vate mass, to shew that some men and wo-
men in certain cases received alone in the
primitive church. But of your arguments
afterward. In this place ye shall give me
leave to find that fault in you that Tully in
the beginning of his Offices layeth to Pane-
tius; who, intending to write of duty in
behaviour, omitteth the definition of the
same: whereas every reasonable discourse
ought to proceed of a brief declaration of
that which is in controversy. If ye had
this done, I doubt not but ye would rather
have plucked your pen from the paper, than
| have meddled with the matter that ye are
| now entered into.

I will therefore shew you out of your
-|own authors, what I take your private
-|mass to be. It is a sacrificé of the body

What private

mass 1s.

THE DEFENCE

and blood of Christ, used in the church in
place of the Lord’s supper, by one priest
alone offered to God the Father for the
sins of quick and dead: which, without
any to participate with him, he may ap-
ply to the benefit of what persons and
things he listeth. That it is a sacrifice of
Christ’s body, that it is used in place of
the Lord’s supper, that one may offer it for
quick and dead, that it is in the priest’s
power to apply it, all your sort do not only
without resistance easily confess, but with-
out reason stoutly defend. Therefore I shall
not need to make any further proof of the
parts of this description. I do therefore
take private mass to be, not only as you
and some other patrons of your cause of
late years have wrested it, since the mini-
sters of God’s truth in this latter time have
driven you to the best shifts of interpreta-
tion ; but as it was commonly used in the
world before, and as it is set forth in your
schoolmen, to the great defacing of Christ’s
death and passion. And yet ye shall not
think that we of truth can or ought to
yield to the best of your interpretations that
ever I could hear.

Of this private mass that I have now
declared to you, the challenge, that ye
take so grievously, was made; and therein
do I also at this time join issue with you,
and say, that neither you nor any of your
part will ever be able to prove the same
by the holy scriptures, ancient fathers, or
allowed councils ; yea, and because you urge
the negative, that, with God’s help, we will

OF THE TRUTH.

abundantly prove the contrary. This will
I do quietly and calmly, without storming
or tempestuous blustering either at you or
at your doctrine; as one most glad to
bring you again to that heavenly truth of
the gospel, which, under the blasphemous
names of falsehood and fantasy, you declare
yourself to have forsaken.

In the residue of your discourse ye would
seem to take from us the true and right rule
to reform the church of Christ, that is, to
prove that in doctrines and use of the sacra-
ments all things should not be reduced to
the pattern of the apostles’ time and the
primitive church. Herein you do as they
are wont, whose conscience doth prick them
to have done amiss. For such alway draw
back and lurk out of the light ; being loath

to come there where they know that truth

would be tried. Even so you, fearing to be
found faulty, would wring us from that rule
whereby all truth in doctrine ought to be
examined. To this purpose ye may seem to
bring three reasons. One is a rolling in of a
rabble of such examples as no reasonable
man would deny unto you. The second
_ |is a resembling of the primitive church unto
_ | an infant in. the swaddling clouts; and this
_ | latter time to a tall man of perfect years and
_|ripeage. The third is the comparison of the
times and the fervent charity that then was
with the key-cold charity that now is.

As touching the first, I cannot choose but
| greatly marvel at your manner of reasoning ;
| which endeavour to prove the contrary of

CAP. III.

THE DEFENCE

that that no man did ever affirm. Did ye
ever hear of any that would have all things
without exception reduced to that very form
of the world that was in the primitive
church? And yet your examples tendeth to
the proof of nothing else. But you pleased
yourself so trimly in the device of those
pretty taunts and odious suspicions, as you
would rather prove that no man denied,
than leave them out of your writing. Your
mind’ was by like to make the world think
that we purposed, under colour of reforma-
tion, to bring all things in common, to sup-
press christian princes, to pull temporalties
from bishops ; to make men forbear stifled
meats, to bring infants again to communion,
&c. If ye thought it to be true, ye were
wickedly persuaded ; if ye did not think it,
ye did maliciously to write it. As for kings
and princes, we must leave [them ] to the go-
vernment of God’s providence, and common-
weals to be ruled by their good and. whole-
some laws. For the teaching of the gospel
taketh not away civil order and policy. But
religion, which is the worshipping of God,
must be examined chiefly by the word of God,
appointed to be the very touchstone thereof,
partly also by the state of that time, which, in
all reason, may seem to be farthest from cor-
ruption.

Herein are to be considered two kinds
of things; truth of doctrines, and right use
of the sacraments, as things in the church
most necessary; rites and ceremonies for
order’s sake, as things mean and indifferent.
In doctrine there is but one verity, and but

in acronis

OF THE TRUTH.

one right use of the sacraments. Therefore
they should be always one at all times, and
then are most likely to be least corrupted
when they are nighest the time they were
first ordained in. As for ceremonies, they
may by discretion be altered, as person, place,
state of time and other circumstances shall

| give occasion, For the use of ceremonies

therefore and things indifferent, we do not
bind you to the apostles’ time and the primi-
tive church.

But if the use of the sacraments be
either by ignorance corrupted, either with
false opinions depraved, or with supersti-
tious ceremonies defaced, is it not full time,
think you, to call for redress according to
the scripture and primitive church? So
to do wé have good example in Christ him-
self, and in his apostle St Paul. When
Christ would purge the law from pharisaical
mitigations and interpretations, he had re-
course to the first fountain and original:
saying, Dictum est veteribus, §c. Hgo au-

tem dico vobis. So he reduced all to the

first fountain. In the matter of divorce-
ment he alleged not the rabbins and late
writers of Jews, but said, Ab initio non
fuit sic: counting whatsoever was added
to the first ordinance of the law to be
a corruption of it. St Paul minding to
redress the abuse of this sacrament of the
Lord’s supper, even in this point, that they
took it in parts and not together, bringeth
the institution of Christ from the beginning,

and saith: ‘ This have I received of the

Lord:” willing to alter nothing therein.

What things
ought to be
reformed to
the state of
the primitive
church, and
why.

Matt. v.

[1Cor. xi. 23. ]

THE DEFENCE

The like doth St Cyprian, Hpist. adCacilium,

against Aguarios. “ We must not hearken,”

saith he, “what other did before us, but
what Christ first did, that was before all?”
And here he speaketh of the same sacra-
ment, and against them that abused it con-
trary to the first foundation, were they never
so holy. This, Tertullian, also, taketh to be
a sure rule against all heresies and abuses,
who saith in this wise: ‘ This reason is of
force against all heresies. That is true that
was first ordained, and that is corrupted
that is after done?.”. And Cyprian in the
same epistle before mentioned, ‘* Hereof,”
saith he, “arise divisions in the church, be-
cause we seek not to the head, nor have
recourse to the fountain, nor keep the
commandments of the heavenly master?,”
Therefore, seeing it is so good a rule in
religion to resort to the first institution,
we also without any just reproach may
require to have the sacraments reformed

[? Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non de-
bemus attendere, quid alius ante nos faciendum puta-
verit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus prior
fecerit.—Cypr. Ep. ad Cecil. Op. ed. Fell. Ox. 1682.
Pt. 11. p. 155.]

[? Quo pereeque adversus universas hereses jam
hine prajudicatum sit, id esse veruam quodcunque
primum ; id esse adulterum quodcunque posterius.—
TERTULL. Adv. Praxeam, c. 2. Op. ed. Semler. Halze
Magd. 1770. Vol. 11. p. 147.]

[? The passage of Cyprian here referred to is not
in his Letter to Cecilius, but in his tract, Of the |
Unity of the Church ; and is as follows:— Hoc {i.e.
the prevalence of heresies and schisms among Chris-
tians] eo fit, dum ad veritatis originem non reditur,
nec caput queritur, nec magistri ccelestis doctrina
servatur.—Cypr. De Unitate Eccles. Op. ed. cit. |
Pt. 1. p. 105.] .

OF THE TRUTH.

eal eee

according to the scripture and the primitive
church.

But youthink, perhaps, although forshame
ye may not say it, that their successors in
elder age of the church were of more wisdom
and discretion, and knew better what they
had to do than the apostles and old fathers.
Thereto tendeth your similitude of bringing
a tall man again to his swaddling clouts ;
therein resembling the primitive church to
infancy, and this latter time to ripe age and
discretion. This is not your only similitude.
It is much in the mouths of such as main-
tain your doctrine. But, I assure you, it
was never invented without the spirit of
antichrist ; nor cannot be maintained with-
out blasphemy against Christ, and singular
reproach of his apostles and their successors.
If that time were the state of infancy in the
church, when Christ himself instructed,
when his apostles taught, when the holy
fathers governed next their time; then we
must needs reckon Christ, the apostles, the
fathers, to be infants in religion, to be babes
in government of the church, not to be able
so well to see what was convenient in the
use of the sacrament as their posterity were.
Can any christian man’s heart fall into that
cogitation without fear of God’s wrath and
displeasure? And yet that must needs fol-
low upon this defence of your doctrine. I
pray you, when hath a man best discretion
to rule himself? Will ye not say when he is
most endued with the use of reason and
wisdom? When had the church of God

{such abundant wisdom and knowledge of

That the pri-
mitive
church was
not of the
state of in-
fancy.

THE DEFENCE

[1Cor. xi. 16.]

his heavenly mysteries? When was it en-
dued with so plentiful graces of the Holy
Ghost, as it was in [the] time of the apo-
stles and first fathers? Did it not appear
in their pure life, in their fervent zeal, in
their miraculous working? And will you
then, to defend your ceremonies, affirm that
time to be the state of infancy in the
church? Do you not remember, that im-
mediately after ye attribute to the primi-
tive church passing fervent charity, with
exceeding holiness of life and contempt of
the world: to this latter time key-cold
charity, slack devotion, love of the world,
and contempt of virtue? Whereof I pray
you cometh this? Not because in the first
time they were strong in godliness, abundant
in lively spirit and grace of God; and we
now feeble and faint to all virtuous doing,
lacking wisdom, and as it were doting for
age? For what other cause was young age
of children called infancy, than for that it |.
had not the use of the tongue, nor could
not speak ? But the primitive church could
speak, and continually declare the good will
of God and his great benefits to his people.
St Paul spake with a loud voice and a
strong spirit: “ Woe be to me, if I preach
not the gospel.” The same was the voice
of all the old fathers and godly men in the
beginning. They were occupied in nothing
but either in teaching and confirming truth,
or in reproving and defacing falsehood and
heresy ; but after six hundred years the pre-
lates of the church well near clean lost their
voices. Wealth of the world, honour and

OF THE TRUTH.

riches had stopped their mouths in such sort,
that within few years it came to pass, that
it was a rare matter, and almost a reproach,
to see a bishop in the pulpit, and hear him
speak to the people. Wherefore ye cannot
so aptly resemble the primitive church to
infancy, as ye may this latter time to doting
old age; wherein they that should do no-
thing but preach the word of God and teach
the people, have either clean lost the use of
their speech through infancy and ignorance,
or else babble they wot not what, through
dotage and folly. That ye may not think me
to speak of stomach more than truth, read
the histories of this latter time, read those
that write particularly of the bishops of
Rome, see how many be praised for preach-
ing to the people and for teaching the word
of God, either by speaking or writing: so
that they may not only seem for age to have
lost the strength of their voice, but, as it

were with a palsy, to have lost the use of

their hands, unless it were in writing of
decrees or fingering of pence.

In that ye attribute unto the primitive
church so good devotion, so earnest zeal, so
fervent charity, and thereby that they came
daily to the receiving of the sacrament ; it is
most true that ye say. But you must again
consider, that the often frequenting of the
Lord's supper, by grace therein conferred, did
both breed and increase that same lively faith
and fervent charity, that in mutual love and
contempt of the world so flourishingly did
shew itself in them. So that their earnest
zeal did not so much cause them to come

C.
An answer
to the eom
parison of
this time
with the
primitive
ehurch.

i sacar

[PRiv. Mass. ] —

| 66

THE DEFENCE

Cold charity
is not so
much cause
of private
mass, as pri-
vate mass is
of cold cha-
rity.

often to the Lord’s supper, as the often fre-
quenting thereof did increase their so great
zeal and charity. For by that means it was
always fresh in their memory, not only by
hearing, but also by feeling in themselves,
that they were all members of one body, all
the children of one Father, all delivered out
of bondage by one ransom, all fed with one
food, and nourished at one table. And
therefore that it was as meet and necessary
for them to embrace one another, as for one
limb of the body to help another; for one
brother to love another; one delivered out
of thraldom to rejoice with the other; one
household companion to tender the good
estate of the other.

Therefore that key-cold charity, that you
say, and truly say, doth reign in these days,
may not more justly be attributed to any one
thing than to your private mass. For there-
by the common use and frequentation of the
holy sacrament of unity, love, and concord,
hath been taken from among the people of
God; being persuaded by you that it was suf-
ficient for them to be present in the church
when one of you alone did say a private
mass. You lay the cause of private mass
upon the key-cold charity of the people;
(and perhaps the first occasion came thereof
indeed ;), but your scalding hot and fireburn-
ing charity may be more justly charged with
the continuance thereof. And therefore the
people of God may worthily cry out upon
the chief masters and maintainers of it; for
all the mischief and devilishness, either in
naughtiness of life, or corruption of doctrine,

OF THE TRUTH.

that the church hath been drowned in this
certain hundred years, may seem to be drawn
in first by that occasion. ‘ Hasten you,”
saith Ignatius, “‘to the sacrament of thanks-
giving and to the glory of God. For when
that is continually frequented, all the powers
of the devil are expelled}.” Then must it of
necessity be, that the slack use of the same
doth bring in weakness of faith, coldness of
charity, contempt of virtue, love of the world,
and the whole heap of those things that the
devil most desireth and chiefly sheweth his
power in. Therefore not without a cause
that perpetual enemy of mankind quickly
did seek occasion, even in St Paul’s time, to
corrupt the right use of this sacrament, and
bring them to factions in receiving of it.
He did well see of how great force it was to
maintain concord, love, and charity ; which
is, as it were, the very cognizance of a chris-
tian man. For that cause he endeavouring,
as he doth alway, traitorously to train away
the servants of God, first alway by the
abuse of this sacrament of unity, he, as it
were, cutteth off the cognizance from their
liveries ; that, not being known whose sol-
diers they are, he may the sooner convey
them into his camp, and there put on his
badge of hatred, malice, and dissension.
Your fault therefore in furthering his endea-

[* Saovdadfere obv ruKvdtepov cvvépyecbar els
elxaptoriav Oev Kal eis dd€av" Sr’ av yap TuKVas
éml TO abtd viveote, kabaipovvrar ai duvapers Tov
Zarava, kal Averat 6 6eOpos aitod év TH Spovota
Uuav THs wictews.—IanaT. Ep. ad Ephes. §. 13.
Apud Ang Apost. ed. Jacobson. Oxon. 1838, Vol. 11.
p. 284, '

THE DEFENCE

An objection.

The answer.

vour cannot be excused; but is to be taken
of christian people as very grievous and.
heinous.

But ye will say, that the priest doth
not imbar any that will communicate ; that
he would rejoice to see them dispose them-
selves unto it; that they do lament to see
the contrary. These be fair words without
any sound truth at all. I assure you, sir,
if the matter were so indeed unfeignedly,
and not you, by force of truth against you,
driven to seek that interpretation for a shift,
your sole receiving had been much more
tolerable. But when, I pray you, did any
of you use in private masses to call for the
people? to reprove their slackness? to shew
them the danger of being present and not
receiving? to tell them of the great com-
modities that cometh by the use of it?
When did any of you stand at the altar as
Chrysostom did}, and cry for the people to
be partakers ; declaring to them, that, in
being present at this heavenly feast as gazers
and no receivers, they did run into the in-
dignation and displeasure of God; even as
they which, being bid of a prince to a feast,
and coming into the house where tables be
laid and furnished with meat, will stand
looking on and eat none of it, must of neces-
sity greatly displease that prince, whose
provision and furniture they do so disgrace.
When, I say, did any of you follow his
example, whom unjustly ye bring for de-
fence of your error? Is not the whole man-

1 See Chrysostom. Comm. in Ep. ad Eph. Hom.
8. §.5. Op. ed. Bened. Tom. x1. pp. 23, 4.]

OF THE TRUTH.

ner of your mass contrary to this? Do
you not turn from the people? Do you not
whisper softly to yourself? Do you not use
a strange language, that neither the people,
neither the priests sometime, do under-
stand? Do you not persuade them, that
they may have the benefit of it, though
they receive not the sacrament? Chrysos-
tom proveth, and other doctors witnesseth,
that those that be present and not receive,
do wickedly and impudently ; and you teach
that, being present and not receiving, they
do holily and godly. If this be not to teach
contrary to the fathers and to the primitive
church, I cannot tell what may be contrary.
To conclude, therefore, if the people be slack
and not well disposed to frequenting of the
sacrament, the fault is in you. And you,
whose duty it was to warn and instruct them,
shall make account for their decay and
perishing in their negligence.

But the effect of your argument, wherein
ye allege the cold charity of the people, there-
by to drive us necessarily to grant sole re-
ceiving, tendeth to this end: if their devotion
be so little, as they will not with calling and
exhortation dispose themselves to receive,
whether then we will (as your phrase is) pull
the priest from the altar. First acknowledge
and amend that fault of your mass, wherein
appeareth neither calling and exhortation, nor
gesture and language fit for that purpose.
Then I say it were better not only to pluck
him from the altar, but also to cast him out
of the church too, rather than he should
under that pretence both himself continually

| aS

THE DEFENCE

alter the institution of Christ, and also cause
the people being present, by Chrysostom’s
witness, to run into God’s displeasure.
Moreover, this key-cold charity, that ye say
the people’s hearts be frozen with, doth it
stretch unto priests or no? Is their devo-
tion any hotter? surely their burning zeal,
that of late time they have used, proveth,
and their whole behaviour to the world
witnesseth, that right devotion and true
charity is even as little among your massing
priests as among the ignorant people. How
happeneth, then, that they do so often fre-
quent the sacrament in these days? There
were never half so many masses (though ye
take mass for the communion) as there is in
this time. Ye shall never read in the primi-
tive church that they had more than one
celebration in a day, unless the church
were so little, that it would not receive the
communicants (as Leo in a certain epistle
mentioneth!), But in your churches ye
have sometime twenty or thirty, and yet

[1 Ut autem in omnibus observantia nostra con-
cordet, illud quoque volumus custodiri, ut cum solem-
nior festivitas conventum populi numerosioris indixe-
rit, et ad eam tanta fidelium multitudo convenerit,
quam recipere basilica simul una non possit, sacrificii
oblatio indubitanter iteretur: ne his tantum admissis
ad hance devotionem, qui primi advenerint, videantur
hi, qui postmodum confluxerint, non recepti, cum
plenum pietatis atque rationis sit, ut quoties basili-
cam, in qua agitur, presentia nove plebis impleverit,
toties sacrificium subsequens offeratur. Necesse est
autem, ut quedam pars populi sua devotione pri-
vetur, si, untus tantum misse more servato, sacrificium
offerre non possit [possint], nisi qui prima diei parte
convenerint,—LEon. Maan. Ep. ad Dioscor. Ep.
Alex. Ep. 81. inter Op. Leon. Magn. &c. ed. Theoph.
Raynaud. Lugd. 1633. fol. pp. 149, 150.]

OF THE TRUTH.

not two communicants at any of them. Ye
must then confess either a great and horrible
abuse of the sacrament, or else that your
priests’ devotion now is much more than in
the primitive church.

But ye object, that priests are bounden of
duty to the daily frequentation of it, and the
people left free. That would I fain learn at
your hand, and see some good proof of the
scripture for the same. But Lanswer that you,
which say we have no colour of scripture for
that we herein defend, have less than a light
shadow to hide your false assertion in; and
that in this ye speak clean beside the word of
God. Christ’s institution was general, and
his commandment therein stretcheth as well
to the people as to the priests. “‘ Take, eat,
drink you all of this ; do this in remembrance
of me,’ bindeth the people as well as the
priests. That ye may not reply, that all
which were present were priests, because
they were apostles, and so apply the sacra-
ment unto priests of necessity, and to the
people upon free pleasure, understand you
that St Paul, a good interpreter of Christ’s
mind, applieth the same to the whole con-
gregation of Corinth; where it is certain
were both ministers and common people.

As for the duty of ministration, where-
by perhaps ye think priests more bounden,
ye should not attribute more to the priest
ministering than to Christ ministering. But
Christ took the bread, gave thanks, brake
it, gave it to them present, willed them
therein to remember his death. Then the
priest in his ministration must do as Christ

[Matt. xxvi.
2

Luke xxii.
19. |

[1 Cor. xi. 23,
et seq. ]

i ee a Ba i ae Be _ = ee ew eh i le od bi: ta ae Oe

THE DEFENCE

did, and no otherwise ; that is, to take, give
thanks, break, and give unto the people.
But why should he break it, or how should
he distribute it, if there be none present to re-
ceiveit? So that hereon I conclude the priest
is not bound to minister, if there be none to
receive. If we had no scripture at all to
prove that the priest should not receive
without company, if ye did give us the
overthrow in that, yet could ye not triumph
therein, as though ye had won the field. It
were but the shifting back of one wing of the
battle, which ye might overthrow, and yet
miss of your purpose. Our contention is for
private mass, and your purpose is to prove
your use of private mass to be good; of which
sole receiving is but one part, and yet have
Lyou ] not sufficiently concluded that neither.
For it followeth not to say, the priest in
case of necessity, when none will receive,
may take the sacrament alone; therefore he
may do it without necessity, when he may
have other to communicate with him. Do
you never receive alone in your mass, but
ye be driven for lack of other? How hap-
peneth then that in one church ye shall
have at one time seven or eight massing in
sundry corners, where they might commu-
nicate all together ; as the manner was of
the ministers in the primitive church? Is
it of necessity, or a purposed altering of
Christ's institution, when that ye turn it
from a communion and supper, to a work
that one man may do to the benefit of
many; and thereby have made it a mer-
chandise to buy and sell for your own gain ?

OF THE TRUTH.

What colour or shadow have you for this in
the scripture? Surely, were my moderation
much more than yours is, I could not choose
but term this, not an itching folly, but an
impudent wilfuluess, so plainly to go against
the express and appointed form of the sacra-
ment.

Because ye urge so earnestly to have
due proof against sole receiving by the
priest, if the people will not communicate,
I will shew you some reasons. But before
I enter into that, I must warn you once
again, that, if our reasons were not so well
able to prove necessity, yet could you not
conclude your purpose, for that your private
mass is nothing less than necessity. In
necessity many things may be granted, that
otherwise are not tolerable. The thief, that
Christ at his death witnessed should be with
him in paradise, was never baptized ; being
excluded by necessity. The ancient histories
make mention of divers martyrs, that died
before they were baptized, being excluded
by necessity. And yet is this sentence never
the less true: Baptism is necessary to a
christian man. Likewise if we should grant
your case of necessity, yet is this sentence
alway true: The supper of the Lord, in the
ordinary use of it, ought of necessity to have
communicants to be partakers of it.

But ye shall hear the foundation of our
proofs against sole receiving by the priest in
place of ministry: and they shall not be gaily
garnished with colours and amplifications,
_ | to make them appear more goodly than they

| be, but plainly and nakedly set forth, that

THE DEFENCE

Proofs
against pri-
yate mass,
out of the
scripture.

even the meanest may see what force and
strength they have. For I write not this so
much to you, whom I know not, as to a
number partly of unlearned persons, partly
young men learned, but not much conversant
in the scriptures, to whose hands these your
writings being brought hath borne a greater
face of proof than any man meanly conver-
sant in the controversies of this time can ac-~
knowledge to be in them. Our proof is this.
In the celebration of this sacrament of the
Lord’s supper we ought to do that only, and
nothing else, that Christ the author of it did
in his institution. But in Christ’s institu-
tion appeareth neither sole receiving, nor
ministering under one kind. Therefore in
celebration of this sacrament neither sole
receiving nor ministering under one kind
ought to be used.

The major is [by] St Cyprian proved
at large and much stayed upon in his epistle,
Ad Cecilium de Sacramento Sanguinis, in
the beginning whereof he seemeth to signify,
that by inspiration he was admonished of
God, to advertise men only to do as Christ
did in the institution of his sacrament. “I
thought it,” saith he, “ both godly and neces-
sary to write, if any man continue in this
error,” he meaneth using water only in the
sacrament instead of wine, “that he, seeing
the light, do return to the root and beginning
of the Lord’s ordinance and institution. And
think not that I do this upon my own fan-
tasy, or any human judgment, &c.; but when
one is charged by the inspiration and com-
mandment of God, it is necessary for a faith-

OF THE TRUTH.

fulservant to obey : being holden excused

with all men, because he taketh nothing upon
him arrogantly, that is compelled to fear the
displeasure of God, if he do not as he is bid.
Do you know, therefore, that we be admo-
nished, that in offering the sacrament of the
Lord’s blood, his own institution should be
kept, and no other thing be done than that
the Lord did first for us himself!?” No
man can make any exception to this propo-
sition, unless he will clean weaken Cyprian’s
reason against those abusers of the sacra-
ment. And then shall we have no ground to
stay upon, but every gloss or interpretation
upon human pretences shall be admitted.
This assertion of Cyprian is confirmed by
Ambrose upon the first to the Corinthians.
There he saith, that they receive the sacra-
ment unworthily which celebrate otherwise

[? Quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter
in calice Dominico sanctificando, et plebi minis-
trando, non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus, Domi-
nus et Deus noster, sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor,
fecit et docuit, religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi
has ad vos literas facere, ut si quis in isto errore ad-
hue teneatur, veritatis luce perspecta, ad radicem at-
que originem traditionis Dominice revertatur. Nec
nos putes, frater carissime, nostra et humana conscri-
bere, aut ultronea voluntate hoc nobis audacter assu-
mere, cum mediocritatem nostram semper humili et
verecunda moderatione teneamus ; sed quando aliquid
Deo aspirante et mandante precipitur, necesse est
Domino seryus fidelis obtemperet; excusatus apud
omnes, quod nihil sibi arroganter assumat, qui offen-

‘sam Domini timere compellitur, nisi faciat quod ju-

betur. Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in calice offe-
rendo Dominica traditio servetur, neque aliud fiat a
nobis, quam ques pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit.—
Cypr. Ep. ad Cecilium. init. Ep. 63. ed. Fell. Ox.
1682. Pt. 11. p. 148.]

THE DEFENCE

than the Lord delivered it. “ For he,” saith
Ambrose, “cannot be devout, which pre-
sumeth to do it otherwise than the author
hath taught!.” Yea, and addeth that we shall
make an account how we have used it.

For the proof of the minor, let us consider
the history thereof as it is set out in the evan-
gelists. In the celebration of the sacrament
used by Christ there appeareth two parts ;
the matter and the form: the matter is bread
and the body of Christ, wine and the blood
of Christ ; of which he that altereth or taketh
away any, doth alter and maim Christ’s in-
stitution, as appeareth by Cyprian. The
form of ministering the sacrament must be
taken out of Christ’s doings. At that time
it was taken, blessed with thanksgiving,
broken, distributed, eaten, drunken, charge
given to remember Christ and his death.
Therefore he that altereth or taketh away
any of these things, maimeth the form of
Christ's institution, and breaketh Cyprian’s
rule. Moreover the force of these words,
“‘Gave to them present,” doth bind to a
company ; because it signifieth a bestowing
of the death of Christ not to one, but to
many. Therefore in Luke he giveth an ex-
press commandment of distributing, as he

[' Indignum dicit esse Domino, qui aliter myste-
rium celebrat, quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim
potest devotus esse, qui aliter presumit, quam datum
est ab auctore. Ideoque premonet ut secundum or-
dinem traditum devota mens sit accedentis ad eucha-
ristiam Domini; quoniam futurum est judicium, ut
quemadmodum accedit unusquisque, reddat causas in
die Domini Jesu Christi Pseupo-AmBrosit Com-

ment. in 1 Cor. xi. 27. Inter Ambros. Op. ed. Bened.
Vol. 11. Append. col. 149.]}

OF THE TRUTH.

vis

doth of eating and drinking, saying, “ Take
you this, and divide it among you.” But
how can he divide it, if there be not a com-
pany to receive it; unless we should, to the
deluding of Christ’s ordinance, make such
a fantastical breaking and dividing, as you
do in your mass? For therein, by Sergius’!
decree, ye break it into three parts: the one
of which ye let fall into the wine, which
there soaked signifieth the body of Christ
raised from death, and sitting in the glory ;
the other dry part, that the priest eateth,
signifieth the body of Christ being upon the
earth ; the third part, which is wont to
tarry on the altar to the end of mass, signi-
fieth the dead in the sepulchres until the day
of judgment. O great vanities wherewith
God punisheth the rashness of foolish men
following their own fantasies, and leaving his
holy word !

But to return to the proof of the mat-
ter. I will follow Cyprian’s example, and
confirm the manner of Christ’s institution
by the testimony of St Paul. In him I
find two arguments. One is in these words,
Unus panis unum corpus multi sumus:
nam omnes de eodem pane participamus.
Which words the holy fathers interpret-

[{! Triforme est corpus Domini. Pars oblate, in
calicem missa, corpus Christi, quod jam resurrexit,
monstrat. Pars comesta, ambulans adhuc super ter-
ram. Pars in altari usque ad miss finem remanens,
corpus jacens in sepulchro: quia usque ad finem se-
culi corpora sanctorum in sepulchris erunt.—SERGIUS
Para in Gratiani Decret. Pt. 111. De consecr. dist. 2.
ce, 22. Corp. Jur. Canon. ed. Col. Munat. 1783. Tom.
1. col. 1170. ]

[Luke xxii.
17.]

(1 Cor. x. 17.]

i
!

THE DEFENCE

(1 Cor. xi.
20—34. J

ing, call the Lord’s holy supper a sacra-
ment of unity; because that as the bread
consisteth of many grains, and the wine
[is] made of many grapes, so we, that be
artakers of that one loaf and one cup,
should be knit together in love and charity,
as the members and parts of one mystical
body. Wherefore Chrysostom noteth, that
it is not said, this eateth of one bread, and
he of another; but all be partakers of one
bread : and addeth why we be one loaf and
one body :—“ Because of the common parti-
cipation that we have of the sacrament’.”
This signification is clean taken away by
private mass; the use whereof may seem
rather to be a sacrament of separation and
dispension®, as after shall more appear. The
second argument out of St Paul is, where to
the Corinthians he reprehendeth the abuse of
the Lord’s supper brought in by dissension
and factions that were among them. Where-
by it came to pass, that one company would
not tarry for another to communicate, but
one sort would receive without another.
Against this abuse he allegeth the institution
of Christ, signifying the same to be against
such receiving in parts, and therefore ex-
horteth them to tarry until the congregation
[' Aird éouev éxeivo Td capa’ Ti yap éorw 6
dptos; cua Xpiotov. ti dé yivovTar ot weTadap-
Bavovtes ; cpa XptoTov. ovyl cwuaTa TOA, GLA
THUR EV......00 yap EF ETépov pév' cwpuaTos ad, éE
ETépou O& éExeivos TpépeTat, GAN’ Ex TOU abTou Tdv-
Tes. O10 Kal éwnyayev’ of ydp Twavres éx Tov évds
apTov metéxouev.—CHRYSOsST. in Ep. 1. ad Corinth.
Hom. xxiv. §. 2. Op. ed. Bened. Tom. x. pp. 218,

2 14.
[? ? dispersion. ]

OF THE TRUTH.

came together, that they might receive ac-
cording to Christ’s institution. That this
was St Paul’s mind, it appeareth by his
first proposition and reason, and by the con-
clusion that he addeth in the end. “ When
ye come together,” saith he, “ye cannot eat
the Lord’s supper ;” where first it is to be
noted, that to the celebration of the sacrament
they resorted together, and were not pri-
vately in sundry corners. He addeth the
reason why they could not at their meetings
celebrate the Lord’s supper. ‘“ Because
every man is occupied in eating his own
supper.” Herein Paul blameth them, not only
for immoderate feeding of their own meat,
but also for the disordered using of the Lord’s
supper in parts; whereas they should be
together, as Christ and his apostles were.
This he declareth more plainly in that con-
clusion, that he inferreth upon the rehearsal
of Christ’s words in ordering the sacrament.
For he saith: “'Therefore, my brethren,
when ye come together to eat the Lord’s
supper, do you tarry one for another.”
What can more plainly declare that St Paul
took the right use of the sacrament to be a
common receiving together, and not a several
use by one man alone? As if he had said:
In Christ’s supper ye see the master together
with the disciples, the table and the meat
common to all; not so much as Judas the
traitor excluded ; one loaf and one cup dis-
tributed among the whole company. There-
fore when ye come together, ye must imitate
the concord and equality that he then used.
If he thought it an abuse in the Corinthians

a* wht Os | TOA bt ae

80 THE DEFENCE ©

to receive in parts, he would count it a far
greater abuse for ten or twelve to receive
each of them severally in one church, at one
time, as though they were of divers religions,
or members of divers mystical bodies. If
the Corinthians in receiving by parts were
blamed of Paul, for that they seemed one to
contemn another, may not priests be as justly
blamed because they seem in their private
mass to disdain and contemn the people? I
will now therefore conclude with Cyprian’s
words: “ If so be both it be ordained by
Christ, and the same confirmed by the apo-
stle, that we should do in this sacrament as
our Lord did, we find that we keep not
that is commanded, if we do otherwise than
Christ did!” Seeing then Christ used com- |
pany in ordaining the sacrament of that holy
feast and supper, priests also ought to have
company in ministering the same.

LB ak For the authority of the primitive church
private mass, | to confirm that this is the right use of
futher, © {the sacrament, I will in this place bring
in only two witnesses; which shall not
speak of this matter lightly or by the way,
but of very purpose declare the manner that
then was used among the people of God,
allowed and confirmed by godly and holy
fathers. Insomuch that if any other man-
ner had been then used, they could not have

[? Quod si et a Domino precipitur, et ab Apo-
stolo ejus hoc idem confirmatur et traditur, ut quoties-
cunque biberimus in commemorationem Domini, hoe
faciamus, quod fecit et Dominus; invenimus, non ob-
servari a nobis quod mandatum est, nisi eadem que
Dominus fecit, nos quoque faciamus.—CyPr. Epist.
ad Cecil. Op. ed. cit. p. 152. ]

OF THE TRUTH.

omitted the same; especially seeing they
professed to declare the manner of Christians
therein. Justin the martyr, in his Apology,
describeth it thus!: “ After prayer we salute
each other with a kiss: then bread and the
cup mixed with water is brought to the
chief brother, which after he hath taken,
giving praise and thanks unto the Father
of all, in the name of the Son and Holy
Ghost, for a space he continueth in thanks-

[? AdAjArous Pirtjuatt dowalduela wavodpevor
tav evyov. "Ererta tpocpépetat TH TooecTHTL
THY adeXpHv apTos Kal TwoTHpLov datos Kal Kpapa-
Tos, Kal ovTos AaBwy aivoy Kal dd€av TH Ilatpl rev
dNwv dia TOU dvéparos TOU Yiov Kal Tov Mvedparos
Tov ayiov dvanéuret, Kai evyapiotiav brip Tob
KaTngi@obat TobTwY Tap’ avtou émi rod Toler aL’
ov cuvtehécavtos Tas ebyds Kal tiv evyapiotiay
was 6 Tapwv ads érevpnpel Aéywv, 'Auyv. Td dé
adunv TH éBpatér puvyn TO yévorro onuaiver. Evya-
ploTHocavtos O& TOU TpoEsTHTOS Kai érevpnuroav-
Tos TWavTos Tov Naov, of Kahovbpevor Tap’ rjuiv did-
Kovot O.ddacw ExadoTw THY TapdvTwWY pEeTadaPeEtv
@rd Tov evxapioTyVévTos dpTov Kal oivou kal Uoa-
ToS, Kal Tots ov Tapovaw atopépoust. Kal 1) Tpopy,
airy kaheirar wap’ Hpiv evxapioTias.s...Kal 77 TOU
4Atov Aeyouevy }uépa TWavTwy Kata TOXELS }} aypovs
pevovT wy eml TO abt ovvédevots yiverat, Kal Ta
aTOMYHLovevuaTa TWY aTOcTOhWY } Ta CUYYpay-
Mara THY TpopnTay dvaywwoKeTat, péxpis éyXw-
pet. Hira ravoapuévov tov dvaywackovtos, 6 Tpo-
ecTws Oia Adyou tiv vovleciav Kal TooKAnow TIS
Tov Kat@v TobTwY pimijcews ToLeiTa, *Ere:ta
dvictapeba Kowy wavtes Kal evyas wéuropev. Kal,
ws Tpoépnnev, Tavoaucvwv rjuov THs ebyis adptos
Tporpeperat kai olvos kat Udwp, kal 6 mpoecrus
evXas ouolws Kal ebxapiotias, bon divas aiTe,
avarreumet, Kal O Kaos érevynuet héywv TO dur"
kal | drddoats kal 4 petadn is awd TeV ebyapioTn-
Oévtwy exdorw yiverat, Kai Tots 08 Tapovet did THY
craxdvwv wéurrerar.—dJust. Mart. Apol. 1. $$ 65—
67. Op. ed. Otto. Jen. 1847. 8vo. Tom. 1. Pt. 1. pp.
154—60. ]

[PRIV. MASs. ]

THE DEFENCE

giving. After prayers and thanksgiving, the
whole company saith Amen. When the mi-
nister’s giving of thanks, and the people’s
well-wishing is finished, those which we call
deacons give part of the bread and cup, over
which thanks is given, unto every one that
is present, yea, and suffer the same to be
carried to them that be absent. This nou-
rishment we call Encharistiam, the sacra-
ment of thanksgiving.” A little after he
declareth the same thing again. “On Sun-
day,” saith he, “‘ companies of the town and
country come together, where lessons of
the prophets and apostles be read. When
the clerk ceaseth, the minister exhorteth and
allureth them to the imitation of so holy

things. After, we all arise and pray. Then

(as I said) bread and wine mixed with
water is brought forth, and the chief mi-
nister, so much as he can, prayeth, and giv-
eth thanks, the people singing Amen. Then
the things consecrated are distributed to
all present, and be sent by the deacons
to those that be absent.” The same form
and manner of celebration of the sacra-
ment, with very little difference, is wit-
nessed by Dionysius; who in Kceclesiastica
Hierarchia, after he hath described a few
other circumstances, and noted that only
they tarried in the church which were
meet for the sight and communion of the
divine and holy sacrament, addeth this:
“After he hath shewn the gifts of those
divine works, he both cometh to the com-
munion of the same himself, and also al-
lureth other. When the divine communion

2 oly NON
RS AE hal ib

OF THE TRUTH.

is both taken and given, it endeth in holy
thanksgiving".”

Would a man desire any plainer testi-
mony of the use of the Lord’s supper in the
primitive church? Doth not all things agree
with the institution of Christ, and example of
the apostle? Is here any conjecture either
of the laity receiving under one kind? or of
sole receiving by the priest? or of sacrificing
the body and blood of Christ for quick
and dead? Is here any word or ceremony
that signifieth such use to have been at that
time? Yet (as I said) these men write not
of this matter by the way, but of purpose
undertook to shew the manner of the church

[' EEijs 68, dud Twv Nectouvpyav 1j THv dytoypd=
pwr déAXTwY dvayvwors &xoovOws yiveTat’ Kal pera
TavTas Ew yiyvovrat Tijs lepas Weptox7s ol Karn-
Xovpmevor, kal Tpos avTots ol évepyoupevot, Kal ob év
Metavola doves pévover dé ob Tijs THY Geiwy éwowias
Kai ko.wvias a&toc...... Kal tas dwpeas Twv Oe-
oupy Lov drodeiEas, els Kowwwviay abTwv iepay abtos
TE EpxXeTat, Kal To’s d\XNOUS TpoTpéTweTat. Mevra-~
oXwy 0& Kal petadods THs OeapyiKis Kowwwvias, els
evXap.oTiav iepav Katadyye. And alittle further
pay 2 adds:— Tava Tots iepws dpwpévors 6 iepdpyns
éupaiver, Ta udv éyKexaduupéva dapa mpds TO éupa-
ves dywy, TO O& Evtaiov abtwyv eis TONG Ovatpav, Kal
TH THY Ltaveveunuévwy Tpds Ta év ols yiyveTat Kav’
&kpov éveicet, KoLywvods avTMY dToTENaU TOUS METEé=
Xovras......Metacxwy dé kal peradods THs VeapxiKijs
Kowwvtas, eis evxapioriay lepdv KataXiyer ueTa
TavTds TOU THs éxKAnoias lepod wAnpwuatos. ‘H
MeTOX1) Yap THS peTaddcews HyeiTat, Kal THS p=
OTLKIS Olaveunsews 1) THY pvoTnpiwy pmeTadnWis.
airn yao 1 KabodrKy Tay Oeiwy edxoouia Kal Tak,
TpwTov év peTovciea yivéoVa Kal dnomAnpwoet TOV
iepdv Kabnyeudva Tay d1’ abrod Oed0ev érépors dw=

nOncopévuv, oUtTw te Kal GdXorts peTadovvalt.—
Races: AREOP. De eccles. hierarch. c. 3. Op. Antw.
1634. Tom. 1. pp. 284 and 299, 300.]

THE DEFENCE

CAP. IV.

in their days. And will you yet continue
to affirm that we have no colour or title in
the scripture and fathers for the reproof of
your private mass ?

But ye will urge, after your manner, to
have an express sentence, that forbiddeth
the priest to receive without company. I
answer, Christ’s institution, the example of
the apostles, the common use of the fathers
was other ways; therefore the priest should
not communicate without other. Ye have
no express commandment that forbiddeth
you to baptism in the name of the Father
only, but that Christ’s institution was other-
wise. Will ye therefore say that ye may,
without offence, baptize in the name of the
Father only? If Christ’s institution in bap-
tism be a sufficient forbidding of the con-
trary to be used; why should not his words
and manner used in the supper forbid you
to do the contrary? Cyprian (as I have
said) taketh it for a full prohibition of
the contrary ; and if you will not, ye must
of necessity weaken his reasoning against
those that he writeth: which did bring
even as good reasons and as holy con-
siderations for their part, as ye be able to
devise any for yours. Now that I have
in this manner laid the foundation of our
proofs, I will proceed to examine the residue
of your arguments against us.

In reciting the authority of Chrysostom,
you bring in a similitude or comparison,
which of how small force they be in proving,
your learning cannot be so little. but that

OF THE TRUTH.

ye must needs know. Even as (say you)
it is to be wished that all contention and
strife were clean banished, and yet men are
not to be forbidden to sue for their right
when they be injured ; so is it to be wished
that people were so devout, as they would
daily receive their housel (for so ye term it) :
and yet is not the priest to be letted to
receive, when the people will not dispose
themselves unto it. Beside that ye con-
clude here only the case of necessity, (which
helpeth the common use of your private
mass very little,) ye make your comparison
between things very unlike and of nature
divers: that is, between possible and un-
possible, and lawful and unlawful. That all
contention should be banished from among
men in this world is a thing unpossible,
and a perfection not to be looked for in
this frail life. But in a Christian con-
gregation, to have some of the people or
ministers to communicate orderly with the
chief minister celebrating, is a thing so pos-
sible, as both the space of many hundred
years it was continually used in the church,
and may at this day with good example
and instruction of the ministers be brought
to pass, although not every day, yet very
oftentimes. Moreover, to sue for one’s right
is not only a thing suffered, but of itself
lawful and good: and we have thereof ex-
ample and authority in God’s word. But
for the priest to minister the Lord’s supper
alone, is a thing neither tolerable nor law-
ful, but contrary to the form that Christ

himself used, neither have we either autho-

THE DEFENCE

rity or example in the scripture as a suffi-
cient warrant to alter that form that he used
and appointed. Therefore your comparison
is faulty on both parts: and especially for
that ye seem to gather thereby, that it is
no more necessary for company to receive
with the priest, than it is to have all con-
tention banished from christian men: which,
as I have said, in the frailty of this world
is unpossible. If such similitudes should be
allowed, a man might break all God’s com-
mandments, and yet prove himself not to
do amiss. Is not this a jolly reason think
you? As it is to be wished that all variance
and strife were clean abandoned from among
christian men, and yet are not they to be
forbidden to sue for their nght, which be
injured of other; so it is to be wished that
all unmarried priests did live chaste; but if
they cannot, the bishop must not forbid
them to have a cousin of theirs to keep their
house, with whom, S? non caste, tamen.caute.
This comparison is as rightly applied as yours
is, and yet, how well it proveth, I will make
yourself judge. All your drift in this part
is, by alleging the corruption of the world
and slackness of devotion, to signify, that
the people cannot be brought to communi-
cate with the priest; and therefore of neces-
sity that he may receive alone. But, be
the world never so corrupt, I think it as
unpossible to have a priest to celebrate
devoutly every day, as it is to have some of
the people oftentimes to communicate with
the priest. Wherefore I may as effectually
conclude, upon the corruption of this time,

OF THE TRUTH.

that priests cannot be brougltt devoutly to
mass every day, as ye do, that the people can-
not dispose themselves, in this cold charity,
godly to frequent the sacrament. And then
were ye best to restrain your daily mass-
ing priests, and appoint them, either to
once, or at least to fewer times in the year;
as ye have taken order for the people gene-
rally to receive only at Easter.

But the priest (say you) is bound to offer
up the daily sacrifice for himself and for the
people. This is the root of all the abuses of
the Lord’s supper, that ye have brought into
the church of Christ. This is it, wherewith
ye do pitifully deface the death and passion
of Christ, making yourselves, for your glory’s
sake, as it were means of reconciliation
between God and his people. This is it,
that hath discouraged christian people from
the often use and frequentation of the
sacrament. For hereby ye signify, that, of
necessity, it appertaineth only to the priest,
and (as you wrote before) the people to be
left free to come as seldom as they will.
This ye take for the ground of your reason
in this place: and yet within few lines have
twice rehearsed it without any proof at all.
But indeed ye must of necessity leave that
unproved that ye be not in anywise able to
prove. For, sure I am, that neither the
institution of Christ maketh mention of any
oblation or sacrifice to be done by the minis-
ter, saving only the sacrifice of thanksgiving:
nor yet the scripture appointeth any bounden
duty for the priest more to use the sacra-
ment than other godly and well-disposed

THE DEFENCE

[Heb. ix. 28;
and see x.
10, 12, 14.]

For what
causes the
Lord’s or
per is called
of the doctors
a sacrifice.

christian men. What signification have you
in the words that Christ used in ordaining
the sacrament, or in the manner of his doing,
that he then offered himself to his Father ?
He did that the next day after himself upon
the cross, as St Paul saith, perfectly once
for ever: neither doth he grant his privilege
of the everlasting priesthood to any, but to
himself. Therefore when your priests take
upon them his office to offer sacrifice pro-
pitiatory, they go beyond their commission,
and take more upon them than their duty,
not without just reprehension of arrogancy
and presumption. Christ’s institution (as
the Evangelists and St Paul setteth it forth)
is a teaching that he gave to us his blessed
body and blood: and not that we should
offer it up to God the Father. He said,
** Take, eat, do this in remembrance of me,”
he said not, “give, offer, and sacrifice for
your sins.” A sacrifice is a thing given to
God: the sacrament was a thing given to
us. Nothing therefore can be of nature
more contrary than your sacrifice, and
Christ’s sacrament. Wherefore it must
needs be, that ye sucked this error out of
the phrases and fashions of speaking that
the old fathers used, perverting the same to
a far worse sense than ever they meant it.

This thing more evidently to declare, it
behoveth to consider, that the fathers upon
divers occasions used to call the sacrament
by the name of an oblation or sacrifice.
First, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Ire-
nus? and other make mention of a certain

[} Tov dptw kal toate kata tiv mpoodopay, wy

OF THE TRUTH.

oblation or offering that Christian people
commonly used when they came together
to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. In this
they offered up bread, wine, and victuals
abundantly, not only to serve the Commu-
nion (as we had a shadow of late years in
the holy loaf) ; but also that of the overplus
thereof as well the ministers might have
their finding, as poor people also be refreshed.
Hereof partly it came to pass, (the example
being taken first of the common people,) that
the administration of the Sacrament, of this
offering, was called an oblation. As in
Trenzus, Lib. tv. cap. 32, “ He taught us a
new oblation of the new Testament ; which
the church taking of the apostles, offereth
up to God in all the world?.” But in other
places after, as in the thirty-fourth chapter,
he expoundeth himself, and signifieth that

KaTa TOV Kavova THs éxkAnoias, xpwuévwv aipé-
cewv.—CLEM. ALEX. Strom. Lib. 1. §. 19. Op. ed.
Potter. Oxon. 1715, p. 375, or ed. Sylburg. Col. 1688.
p. 8317.—Vobis autem nulla procedendi causa, nisi
tetrica: aut imbecillis aliquis ex fratribus visitandus,
aut sacrificium offertur, aut Dei verbum administra-
tur, &c.—TERTULL. De cult. fem.c. xi. Op. ed. Sem-
ler. Tom. 111. p. 52.—Similiter de stationum diebus,
non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus inter-
veniendum..,...Accepto corpore Domini et reservato,
utrumque salvum est; et participatio sacrificii, et
executio officii_Ip. De Oratione, c. xiv. ib. Tom.
Iv. p. 14, 15.—Novi Testamenti novam docuit obla-
tionem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in uni-
verso mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis pre-
stat, &c.—IrnEna1 Adv. Heres. Lib. rv. c. 32. ed.
Grab. Ox. 1702, p. 323.—Sacrificia et in Ecclesia......
Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert, juste
munus ejus purum sacrificium apud Deum deputatum
est.—Ib. ib. c. 34, pp. 325, 6.
[? See the preceding note.

cay ote) 2 eo eee ee
aye wn i

THE DEFENCE

he speaketh not of the offering of the Sacra-
ment consecrated, but of the bread and wine
offered: partly, to the use of the Supper;
partly, to the finding of the poor. “It
behoveth us,” saith he, “to offer to God
the first fruits of his creatures.” And again
a- little after: “‘ We must make offering u

to God, and in all things be found thankful
to God our Maker, offering up to Him the

first fruits of his creatures, in pure mind, in |

faith without hypocrisy, in firm hope, in
fervent love. And this pure offering the
church only offereth to our Maker, giving
to him part of his creatures with thanks-
iving’.” Justin also, in his Apology,
affirmeth’, that, after the communion, all
that would offered to the behalf of poor
people, fatherless children, and sick persons.
Another occasion that the doctors used
those terms of sacrificing and offering was,
that, in celebration of the Sacrament, they
had prayer for all states, and thanksgiving to
God for all his benefits: which the doctors

[’ Offerre igitur oportet Deo primitias ejus crea-
fure...... Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere, et
in omnibus gratos inveniri fabricatori Deo, in senten-
tia pura et fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilec-
tione ferventi, primitias earum que sunt ejus creatu-
rarum offerentes. Hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola

pura offert fabricatori, offerens ei cum gratiarum ac-

tione ex creatura ejus.—IREN. Ady. Her. Lib. rv. e,
34. ed. cit. pp. 325, 326.]

[? Oi edsropotvtes dé’ Kai Bovdspevor Kata mpc-
aipecw ExacTos TH éEavTou & BobAeTax didwot, Kal
TO cu\X\eyouevov Tapa TH TpoecTatt adtoriberat,
kal avtos éwixoupet dppavots Te Kal yrjpats, Kal Tots
Ov vocov 4H Ov adXdnv aitiav eropuévots, Kal Tots
év decpots over, Kal Tots Tapemidrjpors odor Eévors,
Kal awWAGs Waot Tos év Xpeia ovat Kndepwv yiveTat.

Just, Marr. Apol. 1. §. 67. ed. cit. p. 160.]

—_—

OF THE TRUTH.

a Ti

in infinite places affirm to be the true and
only sacrifice of the new Testament. Clemens
Alexan. Strom. Lib. vi. “If God rejoiceth
to be honoured, when as by nature he need-
eth nothing: not without good cause we
honour him with prayers, and send up to
him that most excellent and holy sacrifice?.”
And after, in process of writing, he giveth
the same name to the reading and study of
a godly man. Whereby it may appear, (as
St Augustine also signifieth’, ) that the fathers
called every good and godly action a sacrifice,
were it private or common. And therefore
their successors, by little and little, bent the
same name unto the action and celebration
of the sacrament: wherein most solemnly
prayer and thanksgiving were offered. So
writeth Ireneus, Lib. tv. cap. 34: “We
offer to him not as one that needeth, but
giving thanks for his benefits to us.” And
again, “‘ He will have us to offer our gift to

[® Ei dé tTipwpevov xaipe [t.e. Td Oetov], picer
dvevdces Urdpxov, ovK amelKOTWS ucts Ol EVXTS
Ti@mev TOV Oedv’ Kal Ta’THv THY Duciav apioTHy
Kal ayiwrarnv peta dikatoctvns dvatréuTomev TH
OrKatoTaTw Aéyw yepaipovtes. CLEM. ALEX. Strom.
Lib. vit. § 6. ed. Potter. p. 848. ed. Sylb. p. 717.
He might have added a similar testimony from Ter-
tullian. See his Treatise Adv. Judzos, c. 5. Op. ed.
Semler, Tom, 11. pp. 221—4.]

[* The passage referred to is probably that in
Augustine’s treatise, De Civitate Dei, Lib. x. c. 6.
Proinde verum sacrificium est omne opus, quod agi-
tur, ut sancta societate inhereamus Deo, relatum
scilicet ad illum finem boni, quo veraciter beati esse
possimus......Cum igitur vera sacrificia opera sint mi-
sericordie, sive in nos ipsos, sive in proximos, qua
referuntur ad Deum, &c.—Aveust. Op. ed. Bened.
Paris. Tom. vit. col. 242, 243.]

‘ok oo ee ee ee.

THE DEFENCE

the altar oftentimes: our altar is in heaven,
for thither our prayers and offerings be
directed!.” To this agreeth Eusebius de
demonstr. Evang. Lib. 1: ‘‘ We offer,” saith
he, “to the most high God a sacrifice of
praise: we offer a full, sweet, and holy
sacrifice, after a new sort, according to the
New Testament.” And that ye may not
object, that in this place he speaketh not of
the sacrament, it followeth in this wise:
‘Let my prayer be made as incense in thy
sight. Therefore we do sacrifice and burn
incense to him: sometime celebrating the
remembrance of that great sacrifice, accord-
ing to the mysteries instituted by himself,
both giving thanks to God for our salvation,
and offering holy hymns and prayers unto
him: sometime consecrating and bequeath-
ing ourselves wholly to him both in body
and mind?.” Here he speaketh of the sa-

[' Offerimus autem ei, non quasi indigenti, sed
gratias agentes Dominationi ejus.......Nos quoque
offerre vult munus ad altare frequenter sine intermis-
sione. Est ergo altare in ccelis (illuc enim preces
nostre et oblationes nostre diriguntur ) et templum.
—Iren. Ady. Her. Lib. tv. c. 34. ed. Grab. p. 328.]

[? Ovouev Onta Tovryapoty TH éwl TavTwY Oew
Ouciav aivécews’ Ovopev Td EvOeov, Kal ceuvov, Kal
lepompemrés Ova Ovopev Katvws KaTa TV Kany
AtaOykny thy Kkabapav @uociav........TovTd Tot Kal
aXos OiddoKxer mpopitns, 6 proas, LevnOytw i
Tpocevxy ov ws Ouuiapa évusTidy cov. ovKoUY Kal
Qvouev, Kat Oupimpev* ToTE Mev TIY pYIjUNV TOU peE=
yahou Oimaros kata tad pds a’Tov wapadobévTa
puotypia émitehovytes, Kal THY brép owrTnpias
npev evxapioriay 6u’ eiocBwv Uuvwv te Kal evy@y
T®@ Oew TpockopuiCovTes* ToTEe Oé cas abTods dw
KaQlepotvtes alto, kal TH ye ‘Apyiepet ad’Tov Ad-«
Yo, avT@ cwWmati Kal Wuyf dvaxeiuevot.—EUSEBII
Pampu. Cas. Demonstr. Evangel. Lib. 1. cap. ult. ed.
Colon. 1688. fol. p. 40.]

OF THE TRUTH.

crament and maketh no mention of any
sacrifice propitiatory, but only of the sacri-
fice of remembrance by prayer and thanks-
giving, and of the offering up of ourselves to
God: which is the offering of Christ's
“mystical body,” that St Augustine speaketh
of in divers places: of whose testimonies ye
are wont to bring some for the confirmation
of your sacrifice. As that he hath, De
civitate Dei. ‘The sacrifice,” saith he,
“ that we offer is Christ’s body.” But im-
mediately he declareth, that he meant his
mystical body, that is, the unity of the faith-
ful congregation. For he addeth, “which
we offer not to martyrs, because they be the
same body themselves.” How the bishop
or chief minister offereth up the people in
the communion, he sheweth in his 59th
Epistle ad Paulinum*.

Another cause that the holy fathers
call the sacrament an oblation or sacrifice
is, because, according to Christ’s ordinance,
we celebrate the remembrance of his death
and passion; which was the only true and
perfect sacrifice. And so may ye perceive

[? Ipsum.vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod
non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt et ipsiicAvueust. De
Civit. Dei, Lib. xxu1. c. 9. Op. ed. Bened. Par. Tom.
vit. col. 674.]

[* Epist. 149, in the Benedictine edition. The
assage referred to is, apparently, the following, in
16 :—Voventur autem omnia que offeruntur Deo,

maxime sancti altaris oblatio, quo sacramento pre-
dicatur nostrum illud votum maximum, quo nos vovi-
mus in Christo esse mansuros, utique in compage
corporis Christi. Cujus rei sacramentum est, quod
unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus.—Op. Tom. 11.
col. 509.]

THE DEFENCE

that Eusebius did take it in the place

before recited. For he saith, “We sacri- |

fice, celebrating the remembrance of that
great sacrifice,” &c. Chrysostom likewise,
Hom. 17 ad Ebreos, after he hath in many
words declared, that there is no more but
one sacrifice once offered by Christ for ever,
he addeth this: “Do not we then offer
every day? yes, verily we offer, but doing
it in remembrance of his death.” And
again, ‘‘ That we do is done to the remem-
brance of that was done before.” St Au-
gustine also De fide ad Petrum, declareth the
same very plainly. ‘“‘ Believe stedfastly,”
saith he, “and in no ways doubt, that the
only-begotten of God, being made flesh for
us, did offer himself a sacrifice to God as a
sweet savour. To whom with the Father
and Holy Ghost in the old Testament beasts
were offered: and to whom now, together
with the Father and Holy Ghost, with
whom he hath one divinity, the church
ceaseth not to offer the sacrifice of bread
and wine.” THe saith not of the body and
blood of Christ. ‘For in those carnal
sacrifices there was the figure of the flesh

[* ‘Hpeis Kal? éxadorny nwépav ob moos pépomev
Tpoopéepouev per, adn’ dvd wvnow _ToLod mevor TOU
Oavarou AVTOV..000. ‘O dpxtepeds 11.@v EKELVOS éorey
6 THY Ouciav THY calaipoveay NUas TpoceveyKwv.
éxeivny Tpocpéepopev Kal voy, TiHy TOTE Te Tpoo~
evexDetoav, TID dvdhwrov. tTouTo eis _dvdpuynow
yiverat TOU Tére \yevouévou. Torts yap moueité,
prow, els THY éuny avauvnow, ovK &\Xny Guciav,
Kalamep 0 dpxtepeds TOTE, GANG Tv abtijy del Tot-
oupev’ madXov O€ advauvynow épyatouca Ovcias.—
Curysost. Comm. in Hebr. Hom. 17.§ 3, Op. ed.
Bened. Paris. Tom. x11. pp. 168, 169.]

ES er

ee a ee erent tt

OF THE TRUTH.

of Christ, which, &c., but in this our
sacrifice there is a thanksgiving and re-
membrance of the body and blood of Christ,
that he gave and shed for us%.” Here he
saith not, there is an offering of the body
and blood for our sins, which he would not
have omitted, if the church had taught so
in his time.

For some of these causes before re-
hearsed, the fathers used to call the Lord’s
supper a sacrifice: not meaning, as you do,
that it was a sacrifice propitiatory to be
offered of the priests for themselves and for
the people. This your fashion of speaking
ye seem to take of the manner of the Jewish
priests, which had an offering for them and
the people. As though Christ had left to

[? The treatise “De fide ad Petrum” is not by
Augustine, but by Fulgentius. See the note of the
Benedictines prefixed to the treatise, in their edition
of it in the works of Augustine, and Cave’s “Historia
Literaria,” sub nom. “ Augustinus,”’ &c. The pas-
sage is this :—Firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites,
ipsum unigenitum Deum Verbum carnem factum, se
pro nobis obtulisse sacrificium et hostiam Deo in
odorem suavitatis: cui cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto
a Patriarchis et Prophetis et Sacerdotibus, tempore
Veteris Testamenti, animalia sacrificabantur; et cui
nunce, id est tempore Novi Testamenti, cum Patre et
Spiritu Sancto, cum quibus illi est una divinitas,
sacrificium panis et vini in fide et caritate sancta
Catholica Ecclesia per universum orbem terre offerre
non cessat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis signifi-
catio fuit carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris
ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, et sanguinis
quem erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum nos-
trorum: in isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio at-
que commemoratio est carnis Christi, quam pro nobis .
obtulit, et sanguinis quem pro nobis idem Deus effu-
dit.—Inter August. Op. ed. Bened. Paris. Tom. v1.

| Append. col. 30.]

THE DEFENCE

us a like sacrifice as they had, daily to be
repeated: whereas St Paul in his whole
Epistle to the Hebrews reasoneth against it,
and proveth the contrary, that Christ did it
perfectly once for ever, in such sort, that it
needeth not to be reiterated. But perhaps
ye will object St Cyprian, where he, speak-
ing of the dead, saith: ‘‘ We offer sacrifice
for them!.” But it is evident he offered
there for martyrs: which he was throughly
persuaded were in heaven, and needed no
offering for their sins. Likewise Ambrose
mentioneth, that he offered for Valentinian
the good Emperor*: of whom (in the oration
made at his burial) he witnesseth, that he
doubted not of his salvation, but believed,
by the witness of angels, that he was carried
to heaven?, Therefore their offering for the
dead was no more but, as I mentioned
before, the sacrifice of praise and thanks-
giving to God for them. This thing the
Greek Canon declareth more plainly : where
it is mentioned, that they offered for the
patriarchs, prophets, apostles, yea, and for

[! Sacrificia pro eis semper, ut meministis, offeri-
mus, quoties Martyrum passiones et dies anniversa-
ria commemoratione celebramus.—CyPr. Ep. Presbyt.
et Diac. &c. Ep. xxxix. ed. cit. Op. Pt. 11. p. 77.

{? Date sacramenta ccelestia, animam nepotis nos-
tris oblationibus prosequamur——Omnibus vos obla-
tionibus frequentabo.—AmBRos. De obitu Valenti-
niani Consolatio. $§ 56 & 78. Op. ed. Ben. Paris.
Tom. 11. col. 1189 & 1194.]

[? Nec nos quidem dubitemus de meritis Valen-
tiniani, sed jam credamus vel testimoniis angelorum,
quod, detersa labe peccati, ablutus ascendit, quem sua

; fides lavit, et petitio consecravit.—In. ib. § 77. col.

1194.]

OF THE TRUTH.

the blessed Virgin Mary the mother of God':
for whose sins it cannot be that they offered;
which, by the testimony and faith of the
whole church, be with God in heaven. This
thing is well described by Chrysostom upon
the 8 cap. of Matth. “Therefore,” saith he,
“the priest standing at the altar, when the
sacrifice is proposed, commandeth us to
offer thanks to God for the whole world,
for them that be absent, for those that were

before us, and for those that shall come after
us*.” The same Chrysostom also calleth this

their offering Rationalem cultum3, which
ye cannot interpret a propitiatory sacrifice,
but a reasonable worshipping of God by

[' He refers here to what is called the Liturgy of
St Chrysostom, which is used to this day in the Greek
Church. The words, as given in the edition of this
Liturgy published in the Benedictine edition of
Chrysostom’s works, are these:—"Eri apoopépopev
got tHv oyixyy TavTnv AaTpeiav brip TwY év
TistTel avaTaVvoNévwY TpoTAaTOpwY, TaTépwv, Ta-
TPLAapXaV, TpopnTwv, aTooTOLwY, KNpUKwY, évay-
yediotav, paptipwv, duortoyntav, éyKpaTevTar,
kai mavrds mvevmatos év wiote: TeTEhewwpévov.
(expwvws) éfarpétTws Tis wavayias, axpdvtov,
Umepevhoynuevns, évddtou deatroivns pov, Geord-
kov kal dertap0évov Mapias.—Curys. Op. ed. Ben.
Paris. Tom. x11. p.792. This Liturgy, as now in use
in the Greek Church, has the same words, except
that for dvamavouévwy the reading is, dvatavoapé-

| vev. See the ‘Apyveparixdy, published by authority

at Constantinople in 1820, fol. p. 7.]

[? Aro ox Kal 6 iepeds brép Tijs oixoupévns, barép
THY TpOTEpwY, Yep THY VoV, ITép TMV yevynOév-
Twv Tav éutposber, bwép THY meTa TATA écomé-
vow cis uas evxapicteiv Kedever, THs Oucias 1 po-
Ketévns éxetvns.—CHRyYsost. In Matth. c. 8. vv. 1—4.,
Hom. 25, § 3. Op. ed. Ben. Paris. Tom, vit. p. 311.]

[° See the extract from Chrysostom’s Liturgy, in
the last note but one. |

[PRIvV. MAss. |

THE DEFENCE

prayer and thanksgiving for his holy saints:
by the which he hath builded his church, |
and which now remain as members and
parts of his mystical body: whereunto we
also, by the celebration of the sacrament, be
joined, and so, as it were, knit in unity with
them. This was their offering for the dead,
and not a practice to pull souls out of pur- |
gatory for merchandise and money, as ye
have used in your private masses a great |
number of years, to the great defacing of
the death and passion of Christ.

Wherefore your mass cannot justly be
called the Lord’s supper, but a perverting of
the institution and ordinance, clean to an-
other purpose and end than he willed to be
kept among his people. For the Lord’s sup-
per (as I said before) is a gift of God to us,
which we must receive with thanksgiving:
your sacrifice is a price to be paid to God,
and of him to be taken as a satisfaction.
The Lord’s supper is a remembrance of
one perfect sacrifice, whereby we were once
sufficiently purged from sin, and continually
are revived by the same: your sacrifice is

-a daily offering up of Christ for our sins: as

though it had not been perfectly done at the
first. The Lord’s supper is to be distributed
in the common assembly of his people, to
teach us the communion whereby we all be
knit together in Christ Jesu: the use of
your sacrifice in private mass seemeth, by
the priest's sole receiving, to be a testimony
of separation, and a mean to bring the com-
munity out of christian men’s minds. For,
after they once believed that priests must

ae eas

e—

OF THE TRUTH.

sacrifice for them, they began to leave the
communion and frequentation of the sacra-
ment, as a thing either not appertaining, or
very little appertaining to them, but espe-
cially to priests; and, by that means, the
way was made to your common use of
private mass. So much difference therefore
as is between to give, and to receive; to
remember one perfect sacrifice, and daily to
reiterate a sacrifice ; to celebrate in common
asa testimony of unity, [and] to creep in cor-
ners or by-chapels as a sign of separation : so
much difference is there between the sacra-
ment by Christ appointed, and the sacrifice
of the mass by you devised. This have I
spoken more largely of this matter, than
either I purposed, or you gave me occasion
by any proof brought for the confirmation
of your sacrifice. First, because this is an-
other great abuse in your private mass, that
ye take upon you to defend. Secondly,
that I might declare the ground of your
reason to be very weak, where ye affirm
the priest to be bound of duty to sacrifice

for himself and for the people. Thirdly,
that I might answer more aptly to Chry-

sostom’s authority, which next is to be ex-
amined.

The place of Chrysostom that you
allege, is otherwise in him, than you recite
it. For he saith: Mrustra habetur quoti-
diana oblatio, Frustra stamus ad altare:
nemo est, qui simul participet. ‘In vain
we have our daily offering: in vain we stand

-|at the altar: there is no man to communi-

CAP. V.

| 100

THE DEFENCE

An answer to
Chrysostom.

cate with us.” As touching those words
that ye most beat upon, “There is no man
to communicate,” by them to prove, that
they received only at Easter, and, at other
times, there were none at all to communicate
with the ministers: I will. shew you out of
Chrysostom himself, that they must of ne-
cessity have another sense: and that in those
words he useth that figure of aggravating,
that he commonly useth in all places. For
even in the same place, not many lines before
the words that ye recite, he declareth that a
number used to receive at certain other times.
“T see many,” saith he, ‘“rashly, not pass-
ing how, and more of a custom than law-
fully and of good consideration, to be par-
takers of Christ's body. ‘If the holy time
of Lent were at hand,’ say they, ‘if the day
of Epiphany were come :’ having no regard
what he is, that is partaker of the mysteries.
But the time of coming to it, the Epiphany,
the holy season of Lent, doth not make them
worthy that come; but the sincerity and
purity of mind’.” Do ye not here perceive,
that many used ordinarily to come to the
communion at the Epiphany, and in Lent,

[! This passage has been already given in the
note, p. 14. above. ]

[? IloAXobs 6p@ Tods cwuatos To Xpiorou per-
éxovtas amas, Kal ws éTvxe, Kai suvnbeia par-
ov kal vouw, 1} Aoytowe@ kal dtavoia. av éwicTh,

now, 6 THs aylas TecoepakooTHs Kalpos, olos éav
N Tls, mETEXEL THY pvoTHpiwy, av éwioTH THY éETL-
paviwy tpepa. Kaitou Kaipds ob TovTO Tpocddou.
ob yap éripadvia ovdé TEeccEepaKootH Toret afious
Tov wpoctévar, d\Aa Wuy7s elAikpiwela Kai Kaba-
potrns.—Curysost. In Ephes. c.1. vv. 15—20, Hom. 3.
§ 4. Op. ed. cit, Tom. x1. p. 22. ]

_ res

OF THE TRUTH.

101

as well as he mentioned before at Easter ?
How can ye then gather by Chrysostom that
there was no company to receive but only
at Easter? But what if I declare out of
Chrysostom, that some used to receive oftener-
times? will not your collection upon this
place, that ye seem to triumph upon, appear
to be of very small force? Hom. XVII. ad
Hebreos. ‘‘ Many,” saith he, “take of this
sacrifice once in the whole year, some twice,
some oftenertimes!.” Hereby it is most evi-
dent, that Chrysostom had other to com-
municate with him at divers other times
beside Easter. The manner was (I grant)
that some of custom addicted themselves to
certain days. And in some places the
bishops or synods appointed men to receive,
once, twice, thrice, or four times in the year
(as Augustine witnesseth?). Concilium Eli-
berinum appointeth to communicate thrice

[? TloAXol tis Ovcias ta’tys drat petadap-
Bdvovot Tov wavTos éviavTov, adXor Oe dis, edt
6é moh Gxis.—CuRysost. In Hebr. c. x. vv. 24—26.
Hom. 17, § 4. Op. ed. cit. Tom. x11. p. 169. ]

[? These words, “‘as Augustine witnesseth,’’ ought,
I conceive, to follow the words “ certain days”’ in the
eae sentence ; as there is no passage in Augus-
tine, so far as I am aware, which speaks of bishops
or synods appointing men to receive once, twice,
thrice or four times in the year, while there is an
express testimony for what is asserted in the pre-
ceding sentence, occurring in his Letter to Janu-
arius, as follows :—Alii quotidie communicant corpori
ac sanguini Domini, alii certis diebus accipiunt: alibi
nullus dies preetermittitur quo non offeratur; alibi
sabbato tantum et Dominico ; alibi tantum Dominico.
—Ave. Ep. 54. § 2. Op. ed. Ben. Par. Tom. 11. col.
124, See also his treatise, In Johan. Evangel. Tract.
26. Tom. 111. pt. 2. col. 500.]

102

. THE DEFENCE

in the year!. But these prescript times
were ordained only for them that used sel-
dom to come to the sacrament, that at the
least, they should receive at those times, if
they would acknowledge themselves to be of
the church. Notwithstanding they did not
only leave free to other to frequent the
sacrament, but earnestly calleth them to it
at every assembly of the people. As Am-
brose grievously blameth the custom of many
in the East parts, that used to come but
once in the year: and saith, that he which
is not meet to receive every day, will not
be meet to receive once a year*. Therefore
as in the primitive church very many in
divers places used to be partakers of the
sacrament but once, twice, or thrice, in the
year, so it is evident, that divers other better
disposed did receive with the bishop and

[* The canon here referred to is not considered to
be a genuine canon of the Council of Eliberis or
Elvira. The words of the canon that relate to the
point here in question, as given by Gratian in his
“Decree,” are these :—Nec inter Catholicos connume-
rabitur, qui in istis videlicet temporibus, Pascha, Pen-
tecoste, et Natali Domini non communicaverit.—

| Gratian. Decret. Pt. 111. dist. 2. c. 21. in Corp. Jur.

Can. ed. Col. Munat. 1783. Vol. 1. col. 1170. On the
question of the genuineness of the Canon, see the
note of Mendoza in his edition of the Canons of this
Council, published at Madrid in 1594, fol. under the
title, De Concilio Illiberitano Confirmando, reprinted
with additional notes, Lugduni, 1665, fol. ]

[? Si quotidianus est panis, cur post annum illum
sumis, quemadmodum Greci in Oriente facere con-
suerunt. Accipe quotidie, quod quotidie tibi prosit.
Sic vive, ut quotidie merearis accipere. Quinon me-
retur quotidie accipere, non meretur post annum ac-
cipere.—AMBROS. De Sacram. Lib. v. c. 4. Op. ed.
Ben. Paris. 11.378, |

h
,
ry
{

OF THE TRUTH.

103

ministers at sundry other times. That sort,

| because they were not so many as they

should have been, and as Chrysostom wished
for to have in his church, to exaggerate their
slackness, he saith, “There is none to be
partaker with us.” Meaning that they were
very few and seldom in comparison of that
their duty was.

But if ye will stand upon these few
syllables, nemo est, to prove that sometime
the minister received alone; I answer, al-
beit this place did prove, that none of the
common people would communicate, whose
slackness he there reproveth, yet ye can-
not by this testimony declare, that none of
the ministers or the clergy received with
him being bishop there. Jor the manner
was not then, as you do use it now, that
every priest received particularly at an
altar by himself: but all the ministers and

{clergy did communicate together with the
| bishop or chief minister that celebrated.

This to prove true, although I could bring
in many examples and testimonies, yet I
will content myself with one, that yourself

putteth me in mind of, in reciting afterward |:

the fourteenth canon of Nicene council; for
therein order is taken by that holy council,
that the deacons should not minister to the
bishop and priests, nor receive before them,
but after m order as it seemed more con-
venient®. Look for further declaration of
this in examining the canon that ye after-
ward allege. Wherefore this your place of
Chrysostom doth not sufficiently justify sole

3 [See note p. 30, 31. above. ]

104

THE DEFENCE

receiving by one minister, as ye would have
it seem to do, for proof of your private mass.

But if I should flatly deny, that the mi-
nister received, when none of the people were
partakers, how could you prove it by this
place? Ye will say, because he calleth it,
Quotidianam oblationem, and the people, as
appeareth, did not every day communicate.
I answer, he named it Odlationem, either for
that it was done in the remembrance of
Christ’s sacrifice, or for the offering up of
the bread and wine to the celebration of
the Lord’s supper: he called it Quotidi-
anam, to the imitation of the sacrifice of
the old law: not because it was every day
done without intermission, but for that it
was oftentimes celebrated, that is, so often
as the people assembled together to the
church or common place of prayer, as he
himself witnesseth upon the eighth chapter
of Matthew!. At which times he always
had, either some of the people, or the residue
of the ministers and clergy to communicate
with him, as the manner of that time was.
But ye will here dally upon the proper sig-
nification of this word, Quotidianam, every
day without intermission, every day daily
sacrifice, every day mass, every day at the
altar. Then must you give me leave as ex-
tremely to urge these two syllables Frustra,
in vain is our oblation, in vain is our sacri-
ficng, to no profit or commodity is our

{! Ta ptxddn pvorijpia.......ca Kal? éxdorny
Tedovpeva héyw civatw, ebyapictia Kaeirai—
Curysost. In Matth. c. 8. vv. 1—4. Hom, 25. § 3.
Op. ed. cit. Tom. vir. p. 310.]

OF THE TRUTH.

105

mass, in vain we stand at the altar, because
it is done without company to receive with
us. And surely, if a man rightly consider
this place, he may justly marvel, why ye
would allege it for private mass. For in-
deed there is nothing that hath any colour
for it, but only the wrested argument that
you wring out of the sound of these words,

| Quotidiana oblatio, and Nemo est qui par-

ticipet: by the one part gathering, that the
people then used to receive only at Easter,
as they do now; by the other, that the
priest received every day; and thereupon
conclude your sole receiving. Which your
collection, of how small effect it is, any man
may perceive, if he consider these two things
before declared: First, that at that time all
the ministers received together, as it shall
be afterward more plainly proved by your
own testimonies: Secondly, that I have
evidently shewed out of Chrysostom him-
self, that many used to receive at divers
other times of the year beside Easter. For
indeed he doth not there blame the general
manner of all without exception, but of a
number, that addicted themselves either to
Easter or some other times, whether they
were meet or unmeet: and at other common
seasons would not frequent the sacrament,
though they were more meet to receive.
But these were not all (as I said), but a
number of the common people: and the
residue of the better disposed were so few,
as oftentimes when the lessons of scripture
were read, when prayers and thanksgiving
were made, when bread and wine were (as

106

THE DEFENCE

the manner was) offered up for the com-
munion, (which were the first parts of cele-
bration, as appeareth in Justin',) then he
was compelled either to suffer the ministers
and clergy to receive alone, or else for lack
of communicants to leave off the residue of
the ministration. And that is it, that he
complaineth of, and saith is done in vain:
because it was imperfectly done. For the
preparing to communion, the prayers and
thanksgiving for that purpose, the offering
up of bread and wine, the calling of the
people to it, may seem to be in vain, when
none did come to participate with the mi-
nisters. Wherefore Chrysostom in this place
doth not only nothing confirm private mass,
but also maketh very much against it: and
declareth, that he took the right and true
use of the Lord’s supper to be, when the
people were together partakers of the same.
For if he had taken it as you do, for an
offering up of the body of Christ for him-
self and the people; or if he had at such
tumes received alone, and thought it well
done, he neither could nor would have said,
Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, “In vain
we have our daily offering ;” giving no other
reason why it was vain, but because the
people at such times did not receive. There-
fore it appeareth by those words, both how
necessary he esteemed the people’s com-
munion, and also that he took not Odla-
tionem for a propitiatory sacrifice, as you
do; for then he could not have said frustra
habetur. 'To this purpose it maketh, that
[! See note, p. 81. above. }

OF THE TRUTH.

107

the same Chrysostom in the same place so
earnestly calleth the people to it, as he saith
to them: “‘ Whosoever is not partaker of
the mysteries, doth impudently and wickedly
to stand there?.” And in the 17. Homily
upon the Epistle to the Hebrews he signifi-
eth, that the manner then was, that a deacon
stood in a place higher than other, and with
a sign of his hands and a loud voice called
the people to the communion’. This was
not only at Easter, but at other times also.
By this earnest manner of calling, therefore,
it may appear how much this doctor took
it to be of the substance of the sacrament,
that a number should be partakers of it,
and how far diverse his manner was from
the fashion of your private mass. Now
then your amplified conclusion, wherein ye
claim Chrysostom to be wholly with you,
sheweth itself to be very vain. And we
may now as justly say, as we did before,
that ye have no proof out of the ancient
fathers for that ye do herein so earnestly
defend ; and that we have right good testi-
monies both out of the scripture and out of
the doctors against it. For ye must not
[? Ilés ydp 6 wy peréxwv TH pvornplwy dval-
oXuVTOS Kai itauws EornKxws.—CuRYsSOST. In Ephes.
c. 1, vv. 15—20. Hom. 3. § 5. Op. ed. cit. xi. 23.]
_ LP Ata rovro Kai 6 dtaxovos éripwve? TéTE Tods
adyious KaXwy....... TIAnv ddX’ va pndé rovro éxns
mpopaciterVat, tovTov xXdpi peyaly TH pwr,
perth TH Bon, Kabdrep Tis KijpvE tHv yeipa al-
pwv eis Td twos, tiynd\ds écrws, Tact KaTddydos
yeyouws, kal méya én’ éxeivy TH ppixTH rovxia
avaxpavyalwv, Tos wey Kadel, Tods O& ameipyet 6
iepevs, x.T.A.—Curysost. In Hebr. c, 10. vv. 24—26.
phi. 17. $§ 4, 5. Op. ed. cit. Tom. x11. pp. 170,

108

THE DEFENCE

CAP. VI.

[Luke xxii.
iva

use to ground doctrines upon the conjecture
of a few syllables in one sentence, but com-
pare the same with divers other places, as }
well of the same doctor as of other, and all
together with the common use and manner
of that time; and thereby gather a perfect
conclusion. If you will scan and stay upon
every word or clause in the doctors, as you
do of the holy scriptures, and not consider
them by conference with themselves and
other, you may easily erect infinite new
doctrines, that hitherto were never heard of
in the church.

The reason that you bring in, grounded
(as you say) upon our principal, is even of
as much force as the other before mentioned.
That is not evidently determined in scrip-
ture (say you) ought to stand as indifferent:
but the necessity of company to receive with
the priest is nowhere determined: ergo it
ought to remain indifferent. Your second
proposition is not true. For I say, and
partly before have proved, that it is deter-
mined in Christ’s institution. In Luke he |
saith, Accipite hoc et dividite inter vos. But
how can it be taken at the minister’s hands,
and divided or distributed among them, un-
less there be a company? I see no sufficient
warrant that ye can bring us for the dis-
charge of this commandment. If ye will
say Dividite is no commandment, but a
counsel, that may be undone, and yet the
substance of the sacrament remains: then
belike ye will say, “ Eat, drink,” is no com-
mandment: nor yet, “Do this in remem-

OF THE TRUTH. 109

brance of me.” But all be indifferent counsels
that may be altered (as you after say) by
spiritual governors. So that your spiritual
governors may by this means clean alter
Christ’s institution: and leaving out “ eat-
ing, drinking, distributing, doing in remem-
brance of Christ’s death,” (as they have
done), devise a new fashion of their own
brains, more fit for the church to use than
that order which Christ hath left. But as
he taketh away the right use of the sacra-
ment, that taketh away from it, ‘eating,
drinking, and doing in remembrance,” &c.
so I say that he taketh away the same that
leaveth out “ distributing.” Which because
it cannot be without company, I conclude
the sacrament cannot be used in the cele-
bration without company.

Cyprian teacheth you, that Christ’s in-
stitution should be of more authority with
you, than, so lightly, to change it at your
own pleasure. Only Christ (saith he) is to
be heard in the order of this sacrament.
** And we must not in anywise depart from
the precepts of the gospel. The apostle also
more constantly and stoutly declareth in
another place, that the disciples ought to
observe and do the same things, that their
master taught and did before them, saying in
this wise: ‘If either I or an angel from hea-
ven teach you otherwise than I have taught
you before, accursed be he.’ Seeing therefore,
neither the apostle himself, nor an angel
from heaven, can tell us or teach us other-

already, and the apostle declared to us, I mar-

|
wise than that Christ hath once taught us

110

THE DEFENCE —

vel how this came in use, to do contrary to
that which Christ did’.”. And what, I pray
you, can be more contrary, than, when Christ
bade them drink, to take away the cup;
and, when Christ bade them distribute
among them, and St Paul willed one to
tarry for another, until they came together,
yet contrary to this (as you do) to minister
and receive alone. Therefore I say with
Cyprian, that in altering the sacrament,

either by sole receiving or giving under one |
kind, ye worship God in vain with men’s

traditions. The matter that Cyprian wrote

against, (that is,) using of water alone in the |
sacrament instead of wine, might perhaps, |
in case of necessity, be granted to some, |
that of nature could not abide wine. Never- |
theless the necessity of a few is not to be|
drawn to a general example in the common |
use of the Lord’s supper. Even so it may

[' Ab evangelicis autem praceptis omnino rece-
dendum non esse, et eadem que magister docuit et
fecit, discipulos quoque observare et facere debere,
constantius et fortius alio in loco beatus Apostolus

docet, dicens: Miror quod sic tam cito demutamini |
ab eo qui vos vocavit ad gratiam, ad aliud Evange- |;
lium, quod non est aliud, nisi sunt aliqui qui vos |
turbant, et volunt convertere Evangelium Christi. |
Sed licet nos aut Angelus de ccelo aliter annunciet, |

preterquam quod annunciavimus vobis, anathema sit.
Sicut prediximus, et nunc iterum dico: Si quis vobis
annunciaverit preterquam quod accepistis, anathema

sit. Cum ergo neque ipse Apostolus, neque angelus |

de ceelo annunciare possit aliter aut docere, preter-
quam quod semel Christus docuit, et apostoli ejus
annunciaverunt; miror satis unde hoc usurpatum sit,
ut contra Evangelicam et Apostolicam disciplinam
quibusdam in locis aqua offeratur in Dominico ca-
lice, que sola Christi sanguinem non possit expri-
mere.—Cypr, Ep. ad Cecil.; Ep. 63. Op. ed. cit. Pt.
Il. p. 162.]

a i ti eel oe

OF THE TRUTH.

111

be granted, that in cases of necessity one
may receive alone: and yet that is not to
be taken for a common manner and fashion
in the church, when the sacrament is cele-
brated, as you used in the private mass.
That many circumstances of place, per-
son, and time may be altered or taken away
| for good considerations, without impeach-
ment to the right use of the sacraments, we
grant you: but that company in receiving is
one of those circumstances, that we cannot
grant: as well for the reasons before declared,
as also that we have no authority or example
of the apostles or primitive church, that we
may so do, as we have in all other things
that you recite with more words than need-
eth. We dare minister in other places than
Jewry, because we sce in scripture that the
apostles did so. We minister to women and
laymen, because St Paul applieth Christ’s
institution to the whole congregation of
Corinth, where were both laymen and
_ | women. We celebrate upon any day in-
differently, because the apostles did so,
Actuum 20. uno die Sabbatorum. We mi-
nister to fewer or more than twelve, by the

example of the apostles in twentieth of the |

Acts, and of Paul in tenth and eleventh to
the Corinthians. We receive in the morning,
both because time is a thing indifferent in
this sacrament, and also for that we have
plain examples in the primitive church,
without case of necessity or extraordinary
chances. Christ said not, do it after sup-

| per, as he said, “Divide it among you.” |
He did it after supper himself, because |

THE DEFENCE

he would institute the sacrament of ‘the
new law, in place of the sacrament of the
old law, that at the same supper he had
celebrated. Neither is it so much of the
substance of the sacrament to be done after
supper, as it is to be celebrated with
company; because of the signification of
unity and charity among christian men re-
ceiving together. Which is one chief point
in this sacrament of the Lord’s supper.

The very proportion and likeness of that
ceremony of the old law, in place whereof
the Lord’s supper is ordained, may teach us
the right use of it. The passover was a
solemn eating of the paschal lamb together
in remembrance of God’s great benefit of
their deliverance and passing of his plague
from them. This ceremony they could
not solemnize alone; but if they had not
company of their own house, they should take
of their neighbours. Even in like manner
Christ, having finished at his last. supper
the celebration of that ceremony of the pass-
over, ordained for his even a like sacrament,
a supper, a feast, wherein they, being toge-
ther, might celebrate the remembrance of |
their redemption by his body and blood
given and shed for them. And even as the |
Jews in solemnizing their sacrament had a
community of the remembrance of that
benefit, when their companies were in sun-
dry houses separate, and yet might not one
alone eat the paschal lamb in his own house,
for that God had ordained it to be done with
company ; so all the churches in the world
have community in the sacrament, be they |

OF THE TRUTH.

118

never so far asunder; and yet cannot any
one alone minister it in one church without
company to celebrate with him, because
Christ’s institution was otherwise. Will ye
say here, that company to eat up the paschal
lamb was not of the substance of the sacra-
ment, but an ornament to commend it or
set it forth, and might be altered by spiri-
tual governors? Although the Jews were
very bold in altering many ceremonies, yet
we read not, that ever they durst alter this
chief sacrament ; as you take upon you to
alter, change and take away, by your spi-
ritual governors, all the parts of the Lord’s
supper ; as I will declare to you in order, by
the doctrine of this your defence of private
mass.

The sacrament, as it is in use, hath
two parts, the matter and the form. The
matter is bread and the body, wine and the
blood of Christ: the form of ministration
is, that the minister should take the matter,
and with the words of the gospel give it to
them present, as Christ did. This form (say
you) may be altered by your spiritual go-
vernors. For sometime the priest may

| Teceive alone without the people, sometime

the people without the priest, sometime
both together. So that no certain form of
ministration is needful (as you say) in this
sacrament to be kept. The matter also, ye
signify, may be altered at your pleasure.

or to receive the sacrament of the blood
is not of the substance of Christ’s institu-
tion. For, if it were, the church could not
alter it, as you do commonly in ministering

d
a 2 r

[PRIV. Mass. |

114

THE DEFENCE

to the people, and as you conjecture by
Tertullian and Cyprian, that they did in
the primitive church. Likewise the sa-
crament of the body is not so much of |
the substance, but that upon considera-
tions the church may commonly omit it,
and minister the wine only. For so you
seem to gather by the history of the child,
in Cyprian, to which the priest gave only
wine, as you say. So that the sacrament
of the Lord’s supper, by your doctrine,
either hath no part, that is of the sub-.
stance of it, but consisteth only of mutable
accidences, or else your church is of such
power, that it may clean alter and take
away Christ’s institution. For if you have
considerations, for which ye may com-
monly leave out the wine, and use bread
only; and other considerations, for which
ye may omit bread, and use wine only;
when both those considerations come to-
gether, then may you take away both bread
and wine, and defraud the people of the
whole sacrament, or instead of that may
point [appoint] them another. What is
this but, with exceeding arrogancy, to make

‘your spiritual governors omnipotent in al-

tering and transposing the sacraments by
Christ ordained ? How much more comely
were it for you, revoking your error, to say
with Cyprian, “If we will walk in the
light of Christ (in the order of his sacra-
ments), we must not swerve or depart from
his precepts and instructions ; giving thanks
for that he, instructing us what we ought
to do hereafter, doth pardon us for that

OF THE TRUTH.

offence, which by simplicity we have before
committed },”

Where you endeavour to prove, that
there may be communion in the sacrament,
although it be received alone, in the one
part you make your comparison (as you
have done before) between things of nature
very diverse; that is, between prayer and
the Lord’s supper. In the other, where ye
confirm general communion between all
saints, you prove that no man denieth.
There may be communion in the benefit of
prayer, say you, though one do pray alone;
therefore in the Lord’s supper also. Who
seeth not, that prayer and the Lord’s supper
in the use of them be nothing like? That
prayer is a common action, which, done of
one alone, may stretch to the benefit and
commodity of many, we have authority in
the scripture, and example in Christ himself;
but that the Lord’s supper is such a common
action, we neither have authority nor exam-
ple in God’s word. By as good a reason
we may prove, that a man may baptize
himself without a minister, because one may
pray alone without one to guide him in the
form of his prayer; or that one’s baptism
may profit another that is not baptized, as
@ man’s prayer may profit him that prayeth
not. But you must consider, that there is

[* Quare si in lumine Christi ambulare voluimus,
a preceptis et monitis ejus non recedamus; agentes
gratias, quod dum instruit in futurum quid facere
debeamus, de preterito ignoscit quod simpliciter erra-
vimus.—Cypr. Ep. ad Cecil.; Ep. 63. Op. ed. cit.
Pt. 11. p. 157.]

115

CAP. Vit.

8—2

116

THE DEFENCE

great difference between the nature of sacra-
ments, and other common good works. The
sacraments have an external form by Christ
appointed in the administration of them ;
which we may not alter. In other good
works and godly exercises it isnot so. And
yet you reckon them up together, as though |
they were in all points like. As prayer,
baptism, penance, confirmation, fasting, alms-
deeds, &c. Another man’s prayer or alms-
deed may profit you, I grant, and procure
God’s grace for you. May another man’s
baptism therefore receive you into the
church? or another man’s penance satisfy
for your sins? [ think you will scant affirm
it, although ye be ready to affirm strange
things. No more therefore can your receiv-
ing profit another that receiveth not. Christ
taught us, and his holy word commandeth
us, to pray one for another. But he never
said, receive the communion, or be baptized
one for another. :

To confirm your purpose, you bring
an article of our creed; that is, ‘I believe
the communion of saints.” By this you
prove, that there is a communion of all
good things between them that are in place
and time far distant; which we deny not.
But to understand how little this com-
munion of saints doth serve your purpose
of sole receiving, it behoveth to consider
what communion is. It is called of the
Greeks, kowwvia, and may be defined to be
a society of a company or multitude, which,
by certain laws and covenants, are all par-
takers of one thing. As among merchants,

OF THE TRUTH.

117

et al i ee ne

that upon certain conditions occupy jointly,
and are partakers of like gain and damage,
so all christian men have a certain society
or conjunction; which consisteth in this,
that they are all partakers of one salvation,
and all members of one mystical body, the
head whereof is Christ Jesu. The laws and
covenants whereby we be all thus knit and
joined together, are the word of God and
the sacraments used according to Christ’s
institution. Therefore all churches of the
world have the same word of God, and the
same sacraments; and by them through
faith are graffed into one and the same
body of Christ, though they be thousands
of miles asunder. By the word of God
our faith is instructed; by baptism we be
received first into the society of christian
communion, and made members of the mys-
tical body. By the Lord’s supper we have
from time to time heavenly food ministered
unto us, and, as it were, lively spirit from
the head of this body Jesu Christ. He
therefore that is baptized in India, hath the
same baptism that we have; and, being
graffed into the same body, hath commu-
nion with us in baptism. Likewise they
that receive the Lord’s supper, be fed with
the same food of- the body and blood of
Christ that we be; and so have communion
with us in that sacrament, though in place
they be far off. This is the communion be-
tween christian men; and this we most
readily grant. But will you conclude here-
upon, that there is like communion of the
benefit of sole receiving in private mass, as

118

THE DEFENCE

there is of prayer, when a man prayeth
alone? Then must ye say the same of bap-
tism also. As for example, that our baptism
here may benefit some that are in France,
and receive them into the church; like as
our prayer here may obtain the help and
grace of God for them that be there. Which
were great folly to affirm. Indeed we have
communion in baptism; but every man’s
own baptism bringeth him the grace of that
sacrament. And in like manner is it in the
Lord’s supper. We have all communion
therein; and yet every man’s own receiving
doth profit him.

You will say perhaps, you do not in-
fer this upon the argument of general com-
munion, but only, that they which be in
divers places, may communicate. Well, sir,
I grant you that, but yet, ye should have
inferred the other point, if ye would or-
derly prove that ye began. That is, to
be like communion in the Lord’s supper of
one alone received, as there is in prayer,
when one man in place alone prayeth for
a multitude. The multitude that prayeth
not, may have benefit by one man’s prayer.
But prove you by God’s word, that one
man’s receiving or ministering the Lord’s
supper alone, doth benefit those that receive
not, or that it is such a thing as may be
done of one for many. And surely, it stand:
eth you upon, substantially to prove that
point, or else your private mass will fall to
the ground, and be of no estimation. For
if people shall understand, that your sole re-
ceiving in your mass doth not only nothing

Fr EF a

ae atl ata

OF THE TRUTH.

119

profit them that be present, but (as Chry-
sostom witnesseth) bringeth them in God’s
displeasure, if they receive not themselves,
think you that the gain and advantage
thereof will be so great as hath been be-
fore? Assure yourself it will not. But
what do you infer upon this proof of com-
munion between them that are in place far
distant? Forsooth, in effect, this. That if
there may be communion between those
that are not together in one place, then
a priest, saying mass in our lady chapel in
Paul’s at six o'clock in the morning, doth
communicate with him that doth the like
in Jesus church at nine of the clock the
next day; although in place and time they
be separate. Sir, I deny your argument,
and say that neither the one nor the other
doth communicate with any christian man,
because neither of both receiveth according
to Christ’s institution. I confess there is
communion between them that receive in
sundry places according to the order by
Christ appointed, as there is likewise in
baptism. But, if they alter the sacrament,
they do not communicate. I said a little
before, that in the passover all the com-
panies of the Jews in sundry houses did
communicate, and yet one might not eat up
the lamb alone, because God had taken an-
other order. Likewise all societies of chris-
tian men communicate together in the Lord's

supper, and yet should not one celebrate it

alone, seeing Christ’s example sheweth, and
the apostle’s interpretation declareth, that in
ministering of it, there should be also a par-

120

THE DEFENCE

ticular communion (as I may term it) be-
tween the members of one congregation.

Wherefore the granting of community
between all christian men in use of the sacra-
ment, doth make nothing against this, that
Christ ordained it to be received as a feast
with company; to the end it might more
lively represent both the general giving and
bestowing of his body to death for many,
and also the unity and concord that ought
to be between christian men receiving to-
gether of one loaf and one cup. For this
purpose, as St Augustine signifieth, he used
those external elements of bread and wine,
to declare, that, as the bread of many grains
is brought into one loaf, and the juice of
many grapes is made wine in one cup, so
the multitude of a christian congregation,
receiving together the Lord’s supper, are
made members of one body, knit together in
like faith and charity, and having like hope
of salvation}.

[’ Nihil hic de nostro afferamus; ipsum Aposto-
lum identidem audiamus, qui cum de isto Sacramento
loqueretur, ait, Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus:
intelligite et gaudete; unitas, veritas, pietas, caritas.
Unus panis: quis est iste unus panis? Unum corpus
multi. Recolite quia panis non fit de uno grano,
sed de multis. Quando exorcizabamini, quasi mole-
bamini. Quando baptizati estis, quasi conspersi estis.
Quando Spiritus-Sancti ignem accepistis, quasi cocti
estis. Estote quod videtis, et accipite quod estis.
Hoc Apostolus de pane dixit. Jam de calice quid
intelligeremus, etiam non dictum, satis ostendit. Si-
cut enim ut sit species visibilis panis, multa grana in
unum consperguntur, tanquam illud fiat, quod de
fidelibus ait scriptura sancta, rat illis anima una,
et cor unum in Deum : sic et de vino. Fratres, reco-
lite unde fit vinum. Grana multa pendent ad bo-

wy
3

OF THE TRUTH.

121

The like effect is done in baptism, (as
St Augustine witnesseth, In sermone ad
infantes®,) and we be grafted into Christ and
made partakers of his body and blood. But
he would have it more lively represented
and set forth in this sacrament of commu-
nion, as well for the multitude as for the
apt signification of the external elements.
Moreover the ecclesiastical histories declare,
when Chrysostom was banished, much
against the people’s hearts, that divers of
them would not communicate with his
successor, but had their assemblies and re-
ceived the sacrament in another place by
themselves, so that divers of them by the
emperor’s threatenings could not be con-
strained to communicate with him that was
bishop after him’. This their doing was to
no purpose, if diversity of time and place do

trum, sed liquor granorum in unitate confunditur.
Ita et Dominus Christus nos significavit, nos ad se
pertinere voluit, mysterium pacis et unitatis nostre
in sua mensa consecravit.—AvucGust. Serm. 272. Op.
ed. Ben. Paris. Tom. v. col. 1104. Somewhat simi-
lar passages occur in Cyprian, Epist. ad Cecil., Ep.
63; and Epist. ad Magn. Fil., Epist. 69. Op. Cypr.
ed, cit. Pt. 11. pp. 154 & 182.)
[? The passage here referred to is not to be found
‘| in the works of Augustine, as now extant, but is
given as an extract from Augustine’s “Sermo ad
infantes” by Bede, in his Comment. on 1 Cor. x., and
repeated from Bede in Gratian’s “Decree,” Part 111.
dist. 4. ec. 131. The words are these :—Nulli est ali-
quatenus ambigendum, tunc unumquemque fidelium
corporis sanguinisque Dominici participem fieri, quan-
do in baptismate membrum Christi efficitur.—Bed.
Comment. in 1 Cor. x. ver. 16. Op. ed. Col. Agrip.
1612. Tom. vi. col. 365.] __.
[8 See Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. Lib. virt. cc. 21 &
23. ed. Reading. Cant. 1720. p. 352, 3, & 355. Also
-Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. vi. c. 18, ed. ead. p. 337.]

122

THE DEFENCE

not declare a separation between them that
be of one congregation.

The whole use of excommunication in
the primitive church doth so sufficiently
prove this, as no reasonable man needeth
greatly to doubt it. The effect whereof this
your device may seem to take away. For
what other thing is excommunication, (as
touching the external act,) than a debarring
of the party to receive with other of the
same congregation, and thereby to note him
not to be of that mystical body. But after
your device, a priest that is excommunicated
of the bishop may say mass in his chamber,
and affirm that he will communicate with
him, whether he will or no. Because dis-
tinction of place maketh nothing to the pur-
pose.

Because we necessarily require a number
together, you press upon the matter very
earnestly, and think by your dallying folly to
drive us to many follies. For, you curiously
require a measure of place, a prescription of
time, and a certain number of persons: as
it were thereby to portray unto you a
perfect plat of a christian communion (for
so it pleaseth you to dally in this weighty
matter). I answer, that we see in the
Evangelists and St Paul, that Christ took
bread and gave with it his body; that he
took wine also and gave with it his blood;
that he did it in convenient place and time;
that he had a company with him to receive,
and willed them to distribute among them.
Therefore (with St Cyprian) we count his
example in these things necessary, and not

OF THE TRUTH.

123

to be altered. As for the kind of bread or
wine, the fashion or quantity of place, the
conveniency of time, the increasing or di-
minishing of the number or company, we
reckon among those things that may be
altered (as you say) by spiritual governors.
But to appoint a geometrical measure of
place, a prescript proportion of time, or one
certain number, that may serve for all
churches, times, and ages, is far above our
reach. And therefore I leave it to be de-
vised of such profound and curious brains
as you and yours have; which, beside the
word of God, and contrary to his working
in his creatures, can comprise accidences
without subjects, and bodies without fashion,
quantity or measure, with other such high
mysteries, which neither scripture nor any
necessity of reason doth teach. For indeed
our wits are so simple as, in God’s mysteries,
we can see no more than his holy word
leadeth us unto.

Next is, that you burden us with Eras-
muss authority, and challenge us that we
will not believe his report. Sir, it seemeth
very strange to me, that you, which have
so much hated Erasmus, as ye have often
chased him out of grammar schools, and
driven him into the fire, should now in your
need take help and succour at his hand.
Truly we do now esteem Erasmus, as we
have always, for a man of excellent learning,
and a singular instrument provided of God
to begin the reformation of his church in
this latter time; and yet think we not all

CAP. VIII.

Answer to
Erasmus,
Tertullian,
Cyprian, and
Cyril.

124

THE DEFENCE

Of sole re-
ceiving.

his opinions to be true. For you, I think,
do esteem Tertullian and Origen, and that
right worthily: and yet, if ye will grant
all that they write to be true, I will prove
you an heretic. Notwithstanding we deny
not that which Erasmus saith in this matter,
and knew whence he had his assertion before
you told us. How little it serveth your
purpose, I will shew hereafter. You con-
firm Erasmus’ opinion with that Tertullian
writeth in his second book Ad uaorem, of
the Paynim’s wife that was christened, and
every day privily received the sacrament at
home in her house. And also with the his-
tory that Cyprian rehearseth of the woman
that unreverently opened the chest wherein
she kept the Lord’s body. To this also ye
add Cyril’s authority for reservation. Out
of these places you suck not only sole re-
ceiving, but also ministering under one kind,
reservation, yea, and real presence also.
First, for sole receiving, it behoveth to
consider, that in the time of Tertullian, Cy-
prian, and all that age, the church was in
much trouble, vexation, and persecution: so
that they could not have their ecclesiastical
assemblies and congregations for common
prayer and ministration of the sacraments
so conveniently as afterward in time of |
peace. For every Paynim, especially if his
wife, child, or servant, were turned to
Christianity, was ready and sought occasion
to bewray them, and bring them in trouble
(as it may appear by the same book of
Tertullian that you allege). Therefore they
were oftentimes compelled of necessity to

' OF THE TRUTH.

125

send the sacrament to such as were absent,
and either durst not or might not conve-
niently come: as ye may perceive by Justin
the Martyr that the fashion was in his time}.
Hereof it came, that divers received alone in
their houses. But neither these places, nor
any other that you be able to allege, can
prove, that there were ministers or priests
privately celebrating, with other standing
by that received not. That which these
persons received at home was part of that
[ that] was distributed in the common cele-
bration where company were; and, upon
case of necessity, sent by the ministers to
them being absent. But you should bring
such places as might prove, that the common
minister, in place of the Lord’s supper, did
celebrate and receive alone, other being
present and not partaking. For such a sole
receiving is your private mass that you
pretend to strive for.

Now therefore let us see, how aptly your
argument, gathered upon these places, doth
conclude your purpose. Women and lay-
men sometime, in case of necessity, privately
received at home part of that which was sent
from the common celebration : therefore com-
mon ministers, as often as they list, out of
necessity, may consecrate, and receive alone
in the common place of prayer, when the
people is present and doth not communicate.
I think yourself may easily see of what force
this collection is. That may be granted to

[} Jusr. Marr. Apol. 1. §§ 65—67. Op. ed. Otto. |

Jen. 1847. 8vo. Tom. 1. Pt. 1. pp. 154—60. See the
passages at length in p. 81 above. }

126

THE DEFENCE

a lay person receiving, that may not to a
priest ministering : that sometime in neces-
sity, which may not always at pleasure:
that at home where none is, that may not
in the church where many be. Wherefore
these testimonies are but weak grounds to
build private mass upon.

You will, perchance, object, that such re-
ceiving in houses was used, when the church
was in quiet and without persecution. I grant
you (as the manner is) that fashions, brought
in by necessity or some great consideration,
be oftentimes kept and followed with abuse,
when neither necessity doth constrain it,
nor good consideration can maintain it: and
so was it in this matter. Hierome against
Jovinian mentioneth, that in his time some
used to receive in their houses: but he
earnestly inveigheth against that manner.
“Why” (saith he) “do they not come into
the church? Is Christ sometime abroad in
the common place, sometime at home in the
house?” &c.!_ In Socrates, the Second Book,

[’ The passage here referred to is not in Jerome’s
Treatise against Jovinian, but in his Letter to Pam-
machius in defence of that Treatise. It is as follows:
—Scio Rome hance esse consuetudinem, ut fideles
semper Christi corpus accipiant; quod nec reprehen-
do, nec probo. ‘ Unusquisque enim in suo sensu
abundat.” (Rom. xiv.) Sed &c....quare non ingre-
diuntur ecclesias? An alius in publico, alius in do-
mo Christus est? Quod in ecclesia non licet, nec
domi licet.—HirERon. Epist. seu Lib. Apologet. ad
Pammach. pro libr. contra Jovinian.; Epist. 48. §.
15. Op. ed. Vallars. Tom. 1. col. 227. It will be ob-
served that the translation given above is not quite
correct. It ought to be, “Is Christ one person in
public and another in a private house?” It must
be added, that the meaning of Jerome in the passage

ie mm
by.

OF THE TRUTH.

127

we read, that Synodus Gangrensis condemned
EKustathius, for that, contrary to the eccle-
siastical rules, he granted licence to commu-
nicate at home?. So that hereby it may
appear, that a custom, that, in necessity,
to some persons, is either tolerable, or pius
error, is at another time and to other per-
sons intolerable and wmpia prophanatio. If
you diligently examine that manner of re-
ceiving in their houses at that time, which
ye think to make with you, you shall well
perceive it not a little to make against you.
When they did celebrate, (as Justin before
rehearsed doth witness,) they did not only
distribute to them that were present, but,
by the deacons, sent it to such as could not
be present. Did they not in this point
declare a necessity of partaking, if it were
possible, at every ministration? Insomuch
that when their place would not receive all,
or other necessary cause did let them to
come to the common place of prayer, yet,
that they might be partakers of the Lord’s
supper, they sent it to them where they
were. How well doth this fashion agree
with your private mass! Wherein ye nei-
has been somewhat mistaken by our author. Je-
rome is blaming a custom of receiving the eucharist
at home, at a time and under circumstances in which

the party would have hesitated to receive it at
church. }

[? Evorabios pévror kal peta tavta év TH OV
avtov yevouévy év Tadyypars tis UWaddayovias
cvvodw KateKxpiOn, didte pera Td KaBatpeBjvar ad-
Tov év TH KaTa Katodpecay cuvddw mwodd\a Tapa
tous éxkAnotactiKo’s TUTOUS émpaTTeEV...TAaS EK-
KAnolas éxTpeTouévous én’ oikias THY Kolvwviav
moveto0ar dvéwetGe.—Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 11.
c, 43. ed. Reading. Cant. 1720. pp. 158, 159. ]

128

THE DEFENCE

ther call, nor proffer, nor send to the people:

but so do it all alone in sight of the whole
congregation, as though it were a thing that
nothing appertained unto them. Now then
you may evidently see, that none of these
authorities, hitherto alleged, doth prove
directly your mass: that is, a sole receiving
in the celebration of the sacrament.

But how necessary that time of the church
did think it to be, that the people should
be partakers with the priest, that Epistle
signifieth that you attribute to Anacletus,
where it is this [thus] written. Peracta
consecratione omnes communicent, gui nolu-
erit ecclesiasticis carere liminibus. Sic enim
apostolt statuerunt, et sancta Romana tenet
ecclesia. ‘* After consecration” (saith he)
“let all be partakers which will not be ex-
communicate. For so the Apostles decreed,
and the holy church of Rome observed!.”
The same words by some are attributed to
Calixte. Do you not hear excommunica-
tion threatened to all that do not communi-
cate? Do you not hear, that the Apostles
decreed it, and the holy church of Rome
observed it? And will you yet stand so
stubbornly in your assertion, that there was
private mass in the primitive church?
Will you have better witnesses of that time
than Justin, than Dionysius, than Anacletus,
than Calixte, than the other holy fathers
before mentioned? Would Ambrose have

[' Peracta autem consecratione, omnes communi-
cent, qui noluerit [noluerint] ecclesiasticis carere limi-
nibus. Sic enim et Apostoli statuerunt, et sancta

Romana tenet ecclesia.—ANactett Pap. Epist. 1.
Concil. ed. Hardouin. Paris. 1715. Tom. 1. col. 65.]

i
|

rag eee ee ae eee ee ee We Me Ce ye ee ee he, eee NE Oy > Ss Pee ——_ we cn?” oe i tes eto
Trey ae its PN te ee res . J A

OF THE TRUTH.

129

blamed the people for not resorting to the

| sacrament daily—would Chrysostom have

said, that they which be present and not
receive, do wickedly and impudently —
would they have commonly used (as Justin
saith) to send to those that could not be
present,—if Christ’s institution and the
manner of the primitive church had been
such, that the minister might celebrate alone
without calling or offering, and people with-
out offence be present and not communicate,
as you of long time have used it? Surely,
say what you will, and allege as oft as you
list the authority of your holy mother the
church of Rome so many hundred years, I
think very few that have fear of God and
care of their salvation, will give credit unto
you; especially seeing you can bring no
better testimonies for your purpose than in
this defence you have used.

Another point that you pick out of these
authorities of Tertullian and Cyprian, is for
ministering under one kind: wherein we
have the institution of Christ expressly
against you, as we had in the other. For
in the evangelists and St Paul we see testi-
fied, that Christ took bread and gave with
it his body, and afterward took the cup and
gave with it his blood, and willed them to
observe and use the same. Here you must
of necessity flee to your old place of refuge,
that is, that to receive under both - kinds
is not of the substance of the sacrament, but
such a thing as may be altered by spiritual
governors. For Christ’s body, say you, is
not without his blood, and therefore he that

Against

communion
under one

kind.

[eriv. mass. |

130

THE DEFENCE

receiveth his body under form of bread, re-
ceiveth his blood also, per concomitantiam.
Therefore you say, the people is not defrauded
of that Christ’s will was that they should
receive ; yea, and for good considerations and
honourable to the blood of Christ, they re-
ceive it more convenient than under both
kinds. O profound and deep-fetched reason,
wherein you seem to make yourself wiser
than Christ himself, that ordained the sacra-
ment. While you will seem with your gay
glosses to glorify the blood of Christ, you
clean take away the right form and manner
of his sacrament.

These are the vanities wherewith God
justly doth punish you for your rashness in
leaving his word and following the phan-
tasies of your own brain. But it should
have been your obedience to God’s word to
consider, that the communion of Christ’s
body and blood is not the work of nature
in this sacrament. For, whatsoever is here
given in these things, is to be taken by faith,
and is offered to us in the words of Christ's
promises. So much is given us as God ap-
pointed to give: of whose will and plea-
sure we know no more, than his words
declare unto us- But Christ, as I said, took
two parts of the sacrament; in one of the
which, he said we should be partakers of his
body ; in the other, of his blood ; and left his
prescript and appointed words as well for
the one as for the other. Wherefore we
must more trust him than man’s subtil
device.

You allege a perpetual society of the

OF THE TRUTH.

131

body and blood, which ye call Concomi-
tantiam. It is your own device, and not
Christ's promise in his sacrament. In
Christ's natural body, that is in heaven, I
know his flesh is not without his blood.
But in the sacrament, which is no natural
work, how will you assure me, that the
flesh and blood is jointly signified and given
to me under one part only; seeing Christ
himself, who knew as well as you the joint
condition of his flesh and blood, did not-
withstanding, in two sundry external things,
give the communion of them to his disciples ?
Therefore the faith of the communicants in
the one part receiveth the body of Christ,
trusting to Christ’s promises: the same faith
in the other part receiveth the blood, believ-
ing also our Saviour’s words therein. It
hath respect to Christ’s words and promises;
it looketh not how the body and blood is in
Christ naturally. What ground shall our
faith have if we leave the word of God ?
Oh, ye will say, our holy mother the church
hath so ordained it. Yea, but I say to you,
that if your mother the church of Rome be
the fold of Christ, and if the sheep thereof
be his sheep, they will hear his voice and
obey his word. If they do not, allege the
name as oft as ye will, I will say, you be
sheep of another fold and not of his. For
he saith, Oves mee vocem meam audiunt.
He saith not, they hear themselves and their
own devices, but, they hear my voice. Re-
member what Cyprian saith. Only Christ
is to be heard in this. “ And we must not
look what other did before us, but what

[Jo. x. 27.]

THE DEFENCE

Christ did before all other. When we doubt,
we must have recourse to the order taken by
Christ and by the apostles in their writ-
ing!.”

at ye will say, the church hath au-
thority to alter divers things, especially
being indifferent, and not of the substance |
of the sacrament. Yea, but Cyprian saith,
the precepts of this sacrament be Grandia
et Magna. “And if he be called least in
the kingdom of God, that altereth one of
the least commandments, what shall be said
of him that taketh away these great and
weighty commandments? ?” Cyprian wrote
against those that were called Agquarii,
waterdrinkers; which used only water in-
stead of wine in the ministration of the
sacrament. But they offended not so much
as you do. For they altered only the liquor,

(1 The former part of this passage is from Cy-
prian’s Letter to Cecilius, and the original has been
already given in p. 62, above. The latter part, be-
ginning, “when we doubt, &c.,”’ does not occur in any
part of that letter, nor do I recollect the precise words
as occurring anywhere in Cyprian; but, no doubt,
our author, quoting as he evidently did from recol-
lection, had in his eye the famous passage in Cyprian’s
Letter to Pompeius :—Si in aliquo nutaverit et vacil-
laverit veritas, ad originem Dominicam et Evangeli-
cam et Apostolicam traditionem revertamur; et inde
surgat actus nostri ratio, unde et ordo et origo sur-
rexit.—Cypr. Ep. ad Pompeium, Ep. 74. Op. ed. cit.
pp. 215, 216.]

[? Sed et alio in loco ponit et dicit : Qui solverit
unum ex mandatis istis minimis, et sic docuerit homi-
nes, minimus vocabitur in regno celorum. Quod si
nec minima de mandatis Dominicis licet solvere,
quanto magis tam magna, tam grandia, tam ad ipsum
Dominicz passionis et nostree redemptionis sacramen-
tum pertinentia, fas non est infringere.—Cypr. Ep.
ad Cecil. Ep. 63. Op, ed. cit. p. 155. ]

ew Gee ie we ree a LS el ee ee ee A . ». my ? Lee

OF THE TRUTH.

133

and that upon holy considerations. They
kept the words and promises of Christ. But
you take away the one part clean, and leave
out the words and most comfortable pro-
mises of Christ’s blood to be shed for us. If
then Cyprian were so earnest against those
users of water instead of wine, how much
more earnest would he have been against this
‘manner, if it had been common in his time ?

Here, those places that you recite may
seem to help you, and to make against
us. For, where Tertullian speaketh of the
Paynim’s wife, he mentioneth bread only.
And when Cyprian reporteth that the wo-
man kept the Lord’s body in her coffer, it
|/may seem to be under one kind. These are
but conjectures, and the same very uncer-
tain: for oftentimes in the doctors, where
one kind is mentioned, both are understanded,
as after shall more appear. But to make
this more probable, you allege afterward
out of Ambrose the history of Satyrus his
brother, that hanged the sacrament about
his neck in a stole, (as you call it,) when in
a shipwreck he leaped into the sea: which
must needs be in form of bread only, because
neither our brain nor yours can devise which
way wine can be in such an instrument in-
closed. Surely if we had not known before,
that you had nothing in the ancient Fathers
directly to maintain your maiming of Christ's
sacrament ; this your conjectural gatherings
and surmising reasons would most evidently
declare it to be true. Would a man think,
that any, having the fear of God, would, in
so weighty matters, either ground his own

134

THE DEFENCE

conscience, or seek to confirm others by such
feeble proofs and arguments? Is not this a
strong reason, think you? Satyrus St Am-
brose’s brother, in extreme danger of ship-
wreck, purposing to leap into the sea, took
of one that was in the ship only the sacra-
ment of the Lord’s body, and tied it about
his neck: therefore in the primitive church,
in ministration of the sacrament, they gave
only one kind unto the laity. Though it
had been here mentioned, that Satyrus had,
in this extremity, received one kind alone, it
had been no argument to prove, that it might
orderly be used in the church. But (as
Ambrose signifieth) this Satyrus at that
time was but, as I might say, a novice in
christian religion, not so far instructed in
the faith, that he was as then admitted to
the communion of the Lord’s supper. And
therefore he had not the sacrament about
himself, but took it of other christian men
that were there; which whether they were
ministers or other, the place maketh no men-
tion, but that it calleth them, Jnitiatos:
that is, such as in the congregation were
admitted to the communion. Neither. is
there anything to the contrary, but that the
same persons, which had the sacrament of
our Lord’s body, had also about them the
sacrament of the blood, either in some con-
venient vessel, or else after some other fashion,
as divers of simplicity upon a zeal at that
time used: that is, either by soaking the
sacrament of the body in the wine, or else
by moistening a linen cloth in the sacrament
of the blood, and so carrying it with them.

OF THE TRUTH.

185

For, even as I signified before, that persecu-
tion and trouble of the church at the begin-
ning drave some to receive at home in their
houses; in like manner the same troublous
time, and other cases of necessity, with fer-
vency of zeal, caused men to seek other
shifts also, and to do those things by sim-
plicity upon zeal at a time, that in the com-
mon use of the sacraments they could not do
according to the word of God. Therefore as
some learned and holy men for the time did
wink and bear with such things, so after-
ward other, even as holy and profoundly
learned, did mislike and reprove the same.
As for example, when men did travel any
dangerous journey, and for zeal and devotion
would have the sacrament with them; be-
cause they could not conveniently carry wine
with them, that they might go as nigh to
Christ’s institution as might be, they would
soak the sacrament of our Lord’s body in
the blood. Some other would moisten a
linen cloth in the sacrament of blood, (as I
said before,) and keep it to moisten with
water when they would receive. Some, that
either of nature could not, or for religion
would not drink wine, at other times, used
only water. Some upon other considerations
used milk for wine in the sacrament. Some
were persuaded that in such cases men might
use one kind. Wherefore to sick men or
children they would use wine alone. But
the particular cases of a few ought not to be
taken for a general rule of the holy church.
Neither those things which some did (as
Cyprian termeth it) upon simplicity by suf-

136

THE DEFENCE ©

ferance, should be brought as testimonies
what the church either then did, or ought
now commonly to do. For a man may well
doubt, whether these shifts that men in
necessity did use beside the institution of
Christ, were acceptable to God or no, al-
though divers of them might seem to pro-
ceed of a fervent zeal, and to be done of good
and godly men. It appeareth in Cyprian,
that many of them that used water for wine,
were godly men; and yet by zeal and sim-
plicity did err. Therefore he saith of them
in this manner: “ If any of our predecessors,
either by ignorance or simplicity, did not
observe and keep that which the Lord by
his example and instruction did teach us to

do, by God’s mercy his simplicity may be

pardoned. But we cannot be forgiven, which
be instructed and admonished by the Lord |

to do as he did, &c.’”_ The godly and holy
Fathers did bear in many points with the
zeal and simplicity of a number in that time.
Wherefore those examples cannot be brought
justly to prove the common manner used in
the primitive church, which by manifest tes-
timonies I will a little after declare to have
been far otherwise in the same times that
these things were done.

That the same things, before rehearsed,

[* Si quis de antecessoribus nostris, vel ignoran-
ter, vel simpliciter, non hoc observavit et tenuit, quod
nos Dominus facere exemplo et magisterio suo docuit,
potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia
concedi; nobis vero non poterit ignosci, qui nune a
Domino admoniti et instructi sumus, ut calicem Do-
minicum vino mixtum, secundum quod Dominus ob-

tulit, offeramus.—Cypar. Ep. ad Cecil, Ep. 63. Op. ed.
cit. p. 156, 7.]

wl Eid wel ney Voce ee iota (hl wl okey eller

OF THE TRUTH.

137

were not generally allowed, it may appear by
this, that, when the church was settled, they
did forbid those things, and bound them, so
nigh as might be, to Christ’s institution.
Hereof ye have example in Julius his de-
crees, 1 Hom. Conc., where all the fashions
before recited are expressly forbidden. ‘‘ We
hear,” saith he, “‘ that some, fed with schis-
matical ambition, in the divine mysteries
do consecrate milk for wine ; some serve to
the people the sacrament of the body moist-
ened in the blood, as a perfect communion ;
others offer in the sacrament of the Lord’s
cup, the juice of grapes squeezed ; some dip
a linen cloth in the wine, and keep Lit]
all the year. Therefore,” saith he, ‘‘ hence-
forth it shall not be lawful for any in their
sacrifice to offer any other thing, but only
the cup mixed with water and wine?.”

[? This is attributed to Pope Julius by Gratian, in
his “Decree ;” but Hardouin, in his edition of the
Councils, says, “ est ex Conc. Bracar. Iv. cap. 1. anno
675” (Tom. 1. col. 568); which is repeated by Cou-
stant in his “ Epistole Roman. Pontif.” Paris. 1721.
fol. col. 418. The words, as given by Gratian, are
these :—Audivimus enim quosdam, schismatica ambi-
tione detentos, contra divinos ordines et Apostolicas
institutiones, lac pro vino in divinis sacrificiis dedi-
care: alios quoque intinctam Eucharistiam populis
pro complemento communionis porrigere: quosdam
etiam expressum vinum in sacramento Dominici cali-
cis offerre: alios vero pannum lineum musto intinc-
tum per totum annum reservare, et in tempore sacri-
ficii partem ejus aqua lavare, et sic offerre. Quod
quam sit Evangelice et Apostolice doctrine contra-
rium, &c....... Kt ideo nulli deinceps licitum sit, aliud
in sacrificiis divinis offerre, nisi juxta antiquorum sen-
tentiam Conciliorum panem tantum, et calicem vino
et aqua permistum.—Gratian. Decret. Pt. 111. dist. 2.
ec. 7. Corp. Jur. Canon. ed. Col, Munat. 1783. Tom.1,

col. 1166, 7.]

[Hom. isa
misprint ap-
parently for
Tom.]

THE DEFENCE

Gelasius also after him even as flatly forbade
receiving under one kind; saying, “ We
find that some taking a portion of the
Lord’s body, refuse the cup; which, be-
cause I know not of what superstition they
do it, either let them take the whole sa-
crament, or be kept from the whole. For
the division of this mystery cannot be
without great sacrilege!.” Here you see,
that Gelasius doth count it and call it sacri-
lege to receive under one kind; and your
sort, contrary to this, affirm it to be heresy,
if a man say the people should receive under
both kinds of bread and wine. If you
would rightly have proved your ministering
to the laity in one kind, you should not
have brought conjectures upon such rare
chances as may seem for the time to be
borne with, rather than allowed; but you
should have shewed some plain and evident
examples, that it was in the primitive church
commonly used in celebration of the sacra-
ment. But that you were never able to do,
and so was it said in the protestation, that
you call the challenge. For herein the whole
number of the Fathers be against you.

And that you may not justly say, that we

[' This passage also rests upon the authority of
Gratian’s “ Decree,” where it is attributed to Gela-
sius. It is as follows: —Comperimus autem, quod
quidam, sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione,
a calice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui proculdubio
(quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi)
aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris
arceantur: quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii
sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire.—Gratian.
Decret. Pt. 111. dist. 2. c, 12. Corp. Jur. Can. ed. cit.
Tom. 1. col. 1168.]

OF THE TRUTH.

1389

brag of our empty boxes, that have the name
only, and no stuff in them, I will rehearse
and shew you some of the matter, which
shall be directly applied to that malady and
disease that you have brought to the right
use of the Lord’s holy sacrament. You heard
before rehearsed out of Justin, declaring the
manner of the church of Rome in his time,
that both bread and wine were given to
companies of the town and country, and the
same also sent unto those that were absent.
Here is manifestly declared, that such as
were absent, and received at home in their
houses, had both kinds sent unto them, con-
trary to your conjecture upon Tertullian,
where, you say, one kind only is mentioned
and therefore received. Tertullian and Justin
were both of the church of Rome, and were
not in time far asunder. Therefore it is
like, one manner was used in both their ages.
“The flesh,” saith Tertullian himself, ‘ is
fed with the body and blood, that the soul
may be filled of God*.” He saith not only
the body, wherein the blood also may be
understanded, but he addeth separately the
“Blood :” declaring the manner of Christ's
sacrament ministered in two sundry parts.
Cyprian also, speaking not only of priests,
but of other laymen that were like to abide
persecution and martyrdom for Christ, saith
in this wise. ‘* How do we teach and pro-
voke them to shed their blood in confession
of Christ, if we deny them his blood? or

[2 Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut
et anima de Deo saginetur.—TrertuLu. De Resurr.
Carnis. c. 8. Op. ed. cit. Tom. m1. p. 176.]

140

THE DEFENCE

a = sll

how make we them meet for the cup of
martyrdom, if we do not first by communion
admit them to drink the cup of the Lord??”
Is not this a plain testimony what manner
of ministration was used in Cyprian’s time ?
And will you then, upon a surmise, gather
the contrary? If ye read this father in all
places where he speaketh of the sacrament,
you shall find nothing more common than
Bibi sanyuinem Christi2. “ How wilt thou,”
saith Ambrose to Theodosius the emperor,
“with those hands receive the holy body
of our Lord? how wilt thou be so bold with
thy mouth to be partaker of the Lord’s
blood3?” This emperor was a layman ; nei-
ther is it likely that he received any other-
wise than the other people did at that
time. And shall we think, by a vain con-
jecture of the history of Satyrus, that the

[* Nam quo modo docemus aut provocamus eos
in confessione nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si
eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? aut
quo modo ad martyrii poculum idoneos facimus, si
non eos prius ad bibendum in ecclesia poculum Do-
mini jure communicationis admittimus?—Cypr. et
alior. Ep. ad Cornel, Ep. 57. inter Op. Cypr. ed. cit.
Pt,it. p. 117.1

? As for instance,—Se quotidie calicem sanguinis
Christi bibere.—Cypr. Ep. ad Pleb. Thibar..Ep. 58.
Op. Cypr. ed. cit. Pt. 11. p. 112.]

[* These words are taken from Theodoret’s ac-
count of Ambrose’s address to Theodosius, on his
entering the church at Milan, after the slaughter
that took place under his orders at Thessalonica.
The words as given by Theodoret are as follows:—
II@s 6€ TotavTats br0deEN Yepot tov Acowédtou Té
Tavayiov cHua; Wws € Te oTdmaTL Tpocoicers
76 aia TO Timtov;—THEODORET. Hist, Eccles, Lib.
v. c. 17, Op. ed. Noesselt. Hale, 1771. Tom, 111. pp.
1046, 7.]

OF THE TRUTH.

141

custom of that time was otherwise, because
your mocking head could not devise how
to carry wine ina stole? And yet they of
that time (as ye may perceive by dipping a
linen cloth in the sacrament of the blood)
had devised which way it might be done.
But to our purpose. ‘“* Without confusion
and doubt,” saith Gregory Nazianzene, “ eat
his body and drink his blood, if thou have
any desire of life in thee*.” And yet he
speaketh to the people, Oratione 4, in
Sanctum Pascha. Hilarius also, lib. 8, De
Trinitate. ‘‘ These things,” saith he, “ be-
ing eaten and drunk make that we be in
Christ and Christ in us’.” Basil, De Bap-
tismo, upon these words, “ As often as ye
shall eat,” &c. ‘‘ What profit have those
words ?” saith he. ‘That we, eating and
drinking, may be perpetually mindful of him
that died for us; and so may be instructed
in the sight of God and his Christ, of neces-
sity to keep the doctrine delivered by his
apostles®,” Here, beside the mention both

[* ANN dvetraocybvTws kal dvevdotactws pdye
TO soma, Wie TO aiua, el THS GwHs ewibuuntiKws
éxets.—_GREGOR. Nazianz. Orat. in Sanctum Pascha.
56041 45. § 19. Op. ed. Ben. Paris. 1778. Vol. 1. p.
860.

[5 Hee [i.e. caro et sanguis] accepta atque hau-
sta id efficiunt, ut et nos in Christo, et Christus
in nobis sit.—Hinar. De Trinit. Lib. 8. § 14. Op.
ed. Ben. Paris. 1693. col. 956. ]

{° Ti obv were? Ta pymata Tavra; “Iva éoSi-
ovtTés Te Kal aivovtes del wvnwovedbwpuev Tov UTEP
quay atoVavovros Kat yepbérros, Kal oUTw TWaideu-
OQouev dvayKkaiws puvvakEar évuitriov Oeov Kai Tov
Xpictov avtov Td ddyua Td bd TOU aTroaTOXOV
qmwapadedopévov év Tw eltreitv’ ‘H yap aydan Tov
Xpicrov cuvéxer jas, K.7.4.—BasiL. De Bapt. Lib.

142

THE DEFENCE

of “eating and drinking,” he addeth, “ of
necessity to keep this doctrine” of the Lord’s
supper ; which you, in many points, without
prick of conscience take upon you to alter.
** Priests,” saith St Hierome, upon Sophon.,
** which make the sacrament, and distribute
the blood of the Lord unto the people’.”
This man was priest in Rome in Ambrose’s
time; and yet he signifieth, that the man-
ner then was to minister “the blood to the
people.” And shall the history of Satyrus,
nothing pertaining to the matter, persuade
us the contrary ? What can be more plain
and expressly against you than that Chry-
sostom hath Hom. 18, in poster. ad Corinth.?
There he saith, that in this sacrament the
priest’s part is not better than the people's.

** For it is not,” saith he, “as it was in the
old law, where the priests had part and the
people part; neither could the people be
partaker of that was the priests’. But now
it is not so, for one body and one cup is in-
differently offered to all2.” And it is nota~
ble that he saith, “ All be like worthy to be |
partakers, neither doth the inferior differ

1. c. 3. § 2. Op. ed. Ben. Paris. Tom. 11. p. 650. The
work is considered by the Benedictines as wrongly
ascribed to Basil. |

[' Sacerdotes quoque qui Eucharistie serviunt, et
sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt.—H1ERon.
Comment. in Sophon. cap. 3. vv. 1—7. Op. ed. cit.
Tom. vt. col. 718.]

[? Od xabdaep emt THs Tadaas, Ta pev d lepeds
noble, Ta O& 6 dpxdpevos’ Kal Oéuis odk Hv T® La®
MEeTEXELY WY wETETXEV 6 iepetds. GAN’ Od vov* GAA
TAOW EV CWMA TPOKELTAaL, Kal ToOTHpLOV év.—CHRYS.
In Ep. 2. ad Cor. Homil. 18, in ¢, viii. v. 16. Op. ed.
cit. Tom, x. p. 568.]

CL Aaa etme Ie en aero ers eee
ed

OF THE TRUTH.

143

anything at all from the priest in that mat-
ter’.” Why do you then (so plainly against
Chrysostom) make difference of dignity be-
tween the priest and the people? Is not this,
which Chrysostom speaketh against, one of
the chiefest reasons that you have for the
giving of one kind to the people? But St
Paul, to Timothy and Titus, declareth other
causes that should make the order of mi-
nistry honourable ; and not to defraud the
people of one part of the sacrament. Cyprian
again, in the same sermon De Lapsis, that
you afterward allege, and the same history,
sheweth, that all the company of laymen and
women took the sacrament of the Lord’s cup
and drank of it in order, one after another *.
But I fear I shall seem to most men
to commit much folly, in that I stand so
long with authorities to prove that thing,
which of itself is most manifest; that is,
that in the primitive church the only man-
ner, in the common celebration of the sacra-
ment, was, that all received under both kinds
of bread and wine. Seeing, therefore, Justin
saith, that on Sundays bread and wine con-
secrated were distributed to companies of
the town and country; seeing Gelasius
calleth it sacrilege to divide the sacrament ;

[? *Eore d& Garou ove SiésTynKev 6 iepeds Tov

apxouévou’ olov, Stay adtoXatew Oén THY PpLKTwD |

puotnpiwv. dpoiws yap wavtes ab.ovpeba Twv av-
ta@v.—ID.ib. These words immediately precede those
just quoted. |

{* Alluding to the words—Ubi vero solennibus
adimpletis calicem diaconus offerre preesentibus cce-
pit, et accipientibus ceteris locus ejus advenit—occur-
ring in the extract given above, p. 33, from Cyprian’s
Treatise, De Lapsis.]}

144

THE DEFENCE

seeing Cyprian counselleth that laymen
should be admitted to the communion of
the Lord’s cup, and by a history sheweth
that in his time they used it ; seeing Chry-
sostom affirmeth no difference to be between
the priest and the people in use of this
sacrament; seeing all the residue of the Fa-
thers of all countries and all ages of the
primitive church agree to the same,—were it
not more than wilful blindness not to see,
that holy men at that time in celebration of
the sacrament ministered both parts to the
people, according to Christ’s institution and
the doctrine of St Paul to the Corinthians ?
Were it not almost desperate stubbornness
to persuade the contrary to ignorant people,
and by libels privily spread to detain the
unlearned in error? But it stood you upon
to say somewhat, lest you should seem to
have nothing to say. And yet in very deed
it had been better for the confirmation of
your doctrine to have said nothing: for
then perhaps such as of simplicity depend
upon your authorities, would have thought,
that you had had far better provision for
your defence in so weighty matters ; which
now, seeing your slender and feeble grounds,
will begin, I doubt not, as they have the
fear of God, to mistrust your dealing, and
more diligently examine the residue of your
doctrine. It is not good for them any
longer to walk on other men’s feet, nor to
be guided by other men’s eyes, but them-
selves to see what way they go; lest their
guides, either by ignorance or wilfulness,
lead them into the pit of continual error.

OF THE TRUTH.

The third point that you gather out of
these testimonies, is reservation of the sa-
crament; which to deny (say you) is ex-
treme impudency. I think you have not
met with any, which have flatly denied, that
in the primitive church divers used reserva-
tion. But it followeth not thereupon, but
‘that a man may deny without any im-
pudency at all, either that we have any
testimony in the word of God to justify it,
or, that all the holy Fathers did approve it.
Or if ye will say the contrary, I will not
doubt to make the crime of impudency that
you charge us withal, to rebound upon
yourself. But you will say, you have wit-
ness that it was used, and that of good men,
which is sufficient. Indeed it is sufficient
to shew, that it was then used ; but it is not
sufficient to prove, that it must therefore be
always used ; or, that all did well at that
time in using of it.

Oh, ye will say, this is your old man-
ner: so long as the Fathers make with
you, you will admit them; if they seem
to be anything against you, ye will reject
their authority. Because you commonly
take hold here, and through this odious
report often use to stir men’s stomachs
against us; before I answer your reservation,
I will protest what authority we attribute
unto the old Fathers. This will I do, not
with my own words, but St Augustine’s in
his epistle to Hierome: “I confess that I
have learned to attribute this reverence and
honour only to the canonical scriptures, to
believe stedfastly without controversy all

145

Of reserva-

tion.

What autho-
rity is to be
attributed

to the doe-

tors.

[PRiv. MASS. |

146

THE DEFENCE

that is written in them. As for other, I so
read them, that, be they never so excellent
in great holiness and learning, I do not
therefore count it true, because they were
of that opinion; but because they could
persuade me, either by Scripture or good
reason, that it was not against the truth’.”
Here you may object, that men of such
learning, holiness, and devotion, would never
have written any such thing, if they had
not thought it to be agreeable with God’s
word. Yea sir, I think they, as good men,
were so persuaded ; but that they did leave
in writing many things, not only beside the
word of God, but also against it, I think it
is not unknown to you. And that other
also may know it, and thereby hold us
excused, when we do not in all points agree
unto them, I will recite some proofs thereof.
Clemens Alexandrinus with Justin and
divers other taught, that Angels fell from
their estate for the carnal love of earthly
women: which doctrine, I think, you will not
say riseth of true interpretation of the Scrip-
ture. The same Clement, Strom. 2 and 6,
writeth, that men’s souls are transformed into
angels, and first learn a thousand years of
other angels; afterward teaching other new

[’ Ego enim fateor caritati tue, solis eis scriptu- |’

rarum libris, qui jam canonici appellantur, didici hune
timorem honoremque deferre, ut nullum eorum auc-
torem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam....
Alios autem ita lego, ut quantalibet sanctitate doctri-
naque prepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quia ipsi
ita senserunt, sed quia mihi vel per illos auctores ca-
nonicos, vel probabili ratione, quod a vero non abhor-
reat, persuadere potuerunt.—A vuaust. Ep. ad Hieron.
Ep. 82. (al. 19.) Op. ed. Ben. Paris. Tom, 11. col. 190.]

OF THE TRUTA.

147

transformed angels, at the length become
archangels: which cannot be soundly taken
out of the Scriptures. Justin, Lactantius,
Irenzeus and other wrote, that good men,
after the resurrection, should live a thousand
years in all joy, before Christ should come
to judgment. And yet is that but a mis-
understanding of the Scripture. Tertullian
seemeth to attribute a bodily substance to
God, and in divers places, De Trinitate,
speaketh dangerously of Christ ; for which,
and like things, many would have had his
works counted Apocrypha. Therefore he
doth not always agree with Scripture. Cy-
prian would have heretics to be rebaptized,
and speaketh so dangerously of them that
are fallen from the faith, that he might seem
to give some occasion to Novatian’s heresy.
What shall we say of Origen, in whom be
found so many perilous doctrines, as both I
in this place am loath to rehearse them,
and in the primitive church divers great
learned men would have had his books
burned for the same? I could say the like
of divers other, but that I fear some will
maliciously gather, that I rehearse these
things of purpose, so much as in me lieth,
to deface the authority of the holy Fathers:
which, God is my witness, I mean not;
but only to signify, that, when we measure
their doctrine by God’s words, or teach not
in all points as they did, we be not so much
to be blamed as that men should count us,
as you do, to control the doctors, and as it
were to set them to school. For if God
hath suffered them to err in so weighty

10—2

rem

148

THE DEFENCE

matters as is before mentioned, (although
for good cause I have omitted the greatest,)
it may be also, that they have taught amiss
in some other lighter things, and therefore
are to be read with judgment, as Augustine
counselleth both in himself and in other.
Notwithstanding we do greatly esteem the
Fathers; not only as holy men endued with
singular grace of God, but also as right
good witnesses and strong defenders of the
chief articles of our faith, at that time,
when Satan endeavoured, partly by cruelty
of persecution, partly by infinite numbers
of heresies, to deface and extinguish the
same. Therefore who doth not much honour
them, and (when truth constraineth) with
reverence go from their opinion, is scantly
worthy the name of a Christian man.
Nevertheless, I think not the contrary, but
if they had seen what abuses and super-
stitions would have followed upon divers
things that they either taught, or for the
state of that time winked at and suffered,
undoubtedly ‘they would either have re-
canted those things, as Augustine did many,
or else would have made a more perfect
interpretation of their minds. Before the
Pelagians’ heresy began to be spread, St
Augustine so wrote of freewill, as he seemed
not to himself afterward, sufficiently and as
the truth required, to express the mere
grace of God. Therefore, upon occasion of
that heresy, he writeth more perfectly of
that and of predestination, than either the
other doctors do, or than it is to be thought
that himself would have done, if that occa-

OF THE TRUTH.

149

sion had not been. So doubtless both he
and many other would have done of divers
things now in controversy, if at that time
they had been brought in question. This
much by the way have I spoken of my opi-
nion in the doctors, so much as I can, to
eschew the malicious report that your sort

is most ready to spread of us in this matter. |

Now I will return to reservation. We
deny not (as I said), that some in that time
did use it, as it appeareth by your witness
of Cyril. As touching whose words by you
in this place recited, I have this much to
say,—that, as I know the same place is
alleged of divers other, and therefore I will
not plainly deny it, so, because that work
of Cyril is not extant, I have good cause to
suspect it. And so much the more, for that
divers of your sort have alleged out of the
same doctor in his work Thesaurus, certain
words for the supremacy of the bishop of
Rome, which are not there to be found. This
unjust fathering of your own late devised
fantasies upon the ancient doctors and writ-
ers of the church, may cause us justly to
suspect the residue of your doing. But be
it so, that those are Cyril’s own words in-
deed. We have for that one suspected place
a number of sound testimonies, that all did
not allow reservation, nor think it accord-
ing to the word of God. Origen upon the
v- chap. of Leviticus. ‘The Lord,” saith
he, “deferred not the bread that he gave to
his disciples ; saying, take and eat; neither
commanded it to be kept until the morrow'.”

[* The passage occurs in his comment (not on

Of reserva-

tion.

150

THE DEFENCE

The residue of his words upon the same
place be such, as he seemeth thereupon to
gather an argument, that it should not be
reserved. He that wrote the sermon De
cena Domini in Cyprian, saith plainly of
the sacrament, Recipitur non includitur.
“Tt is received, it is not inclosed or shut
up1.” Isychius upon Leviticum at large
declareth, how that in his time, if the mi-
nisters and people were not able to eat up
so much as was consecrated, the residue was
burned, and consumed by fire, that it might
not be kept until the next day*. Therefore
you may not force upon us to receive reser-
vation, as a thing either grounded in Scrip-
ture or generally allowed by the primitive
church. What will you say to your second

Levit. v. but) on Levit. vii. 15; and is as follows :—
Nam et Dominus panem, quem discipulis dabat, et
dicebat eis, accipite et manducate, non distulit, nec
servari jussit in crastinum.—Ori4é. In Levit. Hom.
5. §8. Op, ed. Delarue, Paris. 1733. Tom. 11. p. 211. ]

[1 Universa ecclesia ad has epulas invitatur.
/®qua omnibus portio datur: integer erogatur, dis-

tributus non demembratur: incorporatur, non in- |

juriatur: recipitur, non includitur: cum infirmis
habitans non infirmatur, &c.—ARNoLD. Carnot. De
Card. Oper. Christi, c. De coena Domini. apud CypR.
Op. ed. cit. Append. p. 42.]

[2 Sed hoe quod reliquum est de carnibus et
panibus, in igne incendi preecepit. Quod nunc vi-
demus etiam sensibiliter in ecclesia fieri, ignique
tradi quecunque remanere contigerit inconsumpta,
non omnino ea que una die, vel duabus, aut multis
servata sunt: sicut enim apparet, non hoc legislator
precepit; sed quod reliquum est, incendi jubet.
Dies autem non commemoravit, ut queecunque cu-
juscunque rei causa emergente remanserint incon-
sumpta, sive tempus in causa sit, sive quid aliud
fuerit, ignis opus et consumptio fiat.—Isycu. In
Levit. Lib. 11. In cap. viii. vers. 81. Ed. Basil. 1527.
fol. 49. p.]

OF THE TRUTH.

151

epistle of Clement bishop of Rome? “Let
so many holy loaves,” saith he, “‘be offered
upon the altar, as may be sufficiently for the
people. Ifso be any shall remain, let them
not be kept until the morrow, but, with
fear and trembling, let the ministers eat it
up*.” This was a bishop of Rome, this was
Peter’s successor, this was (as you say) head
of the church ; and yet you hear his appoint-
ment and order taken expressly against re-
servation. If ye will not believe us, why
do you not believe your own? Will you
say, with your testimony of Cyril, that
Origen was mad, that Isychius was mad ?
Or if ye be not afraid to say it of them, will
you say that Clement was mad also? Well
sir, if ye will prove us impudent or mad for
not receiving reservation, I trust you see,
that we shall have company in our impu-
dency and madness.

But Clement’s epistle presseth you hard
in sole receiving and private mass also, and
signifieth that all the ministers received
together with the people. For, in the
words before rehearsed, he speaketh of the
mass that was used, when that epistle was
made; and yet it willeth you to prepare
for the people. Why do you not follow
his authority in these points? You will

[? This is taken from a passage ascribed to Cle-
ment’s second Epistle in Gratian’s Decree, where we
find the following words:—Tanta in altario certe
holocausta offerantur, quanta populo sufficere de-
beant. Quod si remanserint, in crastinum non re-
serventur, sed, cum timore et tremore, clericorum
diligentia consumantur.—Gratian. Decret. P. 3. De

Consecr, Dist. 2. c. 23. Corp. Jur. Can. ed. Col.
| Munat, 1783. Tom. 1. col. 117 1.]

152

THE DEFENCE

say, as you said in the beginning, if the
people be absent, and, when the sacrament
is prepared, either will not or cannot come
to receive, Clement then sayeth not, that
the priest consecrating should forbear, be-
cause the other bidden guests will not come.
The church (you will say) did alway profess
a communion, if any would dispose them-
selves. I answer: First, if Clement bade you
prepare for the people, why do you contemn
his canon, and on the holy day, when a
number be present, neither call them, nor
prepare for them. If the church always
professed a communion, why have you one
priest standing at the altar alone, with one
singing cake for himself, which he sheweth
to the people, to be seen and honoured, and
not to be eaten? Where have you authority
or example for that? Have you that in the
Scripture? Have you that in the doctors ?
Have you that in the ancient councils? If
you have, shew it us, and we will, without
any more resistance, give over to you. If
you have not, dread the wrath of God, for
giving the occasion of so much ill to the
simple people. Secondly, if the people will

not come, when the sacrament is prepared, |

the priest alone ought not to communicate.
For Paul willed the Corinthians to tarry
one for another, and not every man to pre-
sume to eat his own supper, as I said before.
Then, (say you,) if the people will never
receive, nor the priest shall ever receive, by
occasion of the people’s slackness. As I have
repeated once or twice before, so I say now
again ; that, to prove your case of necessity,

ae eS eee eee Le OS ee eee

OF THE TRUTH.

158

you imagine such an impossibility, as can-
not lightly happen among a christian con-
gregation rightly instructed. So that, if
some of the people will not at convenient
times receive with the minister, the fault is
in the ministers and priests themselves, that
should instruct and teach them. Wherefore
leave the imagine [imagining ] of a case well
near impossible, and amend your fault of
not admonishing and calling the people at
your private masses.

Your next proofs are the history of Sera-
pion in Eusebius, Jib. 6, ca. ultim., who,
lying in his death-bed, was served with
the sacrament alone; and also the 12th
canon of Nicene council, which provideth
also for them that were in despair of life,
that they lacked not their necessary voyage-
provision. Out of these places also you
gather sole receiving, and that under one
kind. These chances also, that you here in
this place recite, be either cases of necessity
or great difficulty, as yourself confesseth ;
and therefore cannot infer any general man-
ner, that either then was, or now should be,
used in the common ministration of the
sacrament. But neither the history nor yet
the canon speaketh generally of all that lie
in their death-bed, but only of one sort, that
before were restrained from communion,
which they called penitents. For the man-
ner of the primitive church was, if a man
had either in persecution forsaken the faith,
or otherwise grievously offended, that before
he could be received to the communion again,

CAP. IX.

Answer to
Eusebius and

Nicene coun-

ceil.

154

THE DEFENCE

he had a time of penance appointed him ; as
three, four, or five years, more or less as the
matter required. If it happened, that, before
his time of penance were finished, he were at
extremity of death, then he should have the
sacrament given him, lest he should depart
excommunicated, and as one that was not
of the church and mystical body of Christ.
For this extremity, which then was very
common and often, to satisfy men’s weak
consciences, they were, in the primitive
church, driven almost of necessity, both to
such kind of sole receiving, and also reserv-
ing of the sacrament. Of this sort was that
[of] Serapion, that you speak of. Of this
sort doth that twelfth canon speak, as it
may appear in the other going before. Now,
in this necessity and extremity, if they
admitted sole receiving, is it a proof that
they used it in the common celebration
of the sacrament, as you do? By as good
reason you may prove, out of the same
history, that it were no abuse to have
boys and children to minister the sacra-
ment commonly; because, in that extrem-
ity, Serapion’s boy delivered him the sacra-
ment which the priest sent. Surely in
this your manner of defending private mass,
wherein you shew yourself to be able to
bring nothing for the maintenance thereof,
but only extraordinary chances in extrem-
ity and necessity, you do much bewray
the evil use of it, and manifestly declare,
yea, and as it were protest, that in deed
it is evil and without all authority or ex-
ample of the primitive church, if you be

a — -

OF THE TRUTH.

155

not driven to it by necessity and lack of
communicants.

You will reply, perhaps, and say, by
these examples it may appear, that company
in receiving is not of necessity, or if it had
been, they would not have used the contrary.
Yes, sir, necessity and extremity may cause
some kind of God’s commandments at times
to be omitted ; and yet, out of necessity, the
same commandments ought necessarily to be
observed and kept. The Jews were com-
manded on the sabbath-day to do no bodily
or toiling work. Nevertheless sometimes we
read, that, by necessity of their enemies con-
strained, they kept war and fought on the
sabbath-day. Yet can you not say but that
commandment was necessary. I said the
like before of baptism ; and the same must I
say in the Lord’s supper ; that a case of ne-
cessity may, perhaps, for a time alter some
necessary part of it, and yet not be taken
for any general rule. Therefore if ye will
receive alone in your mass, or minister under
one kind, you must never do it but in ex-
tremity ; otherwise your proofs help you
nothing at all. Yea, but in the history of
Serapion but one kind is mentioned, and
reservation manifestly appeareth in that it
was so ready to be delivered to the messen-
ger. If in their reservation (which they
used for cases of extremity) they did keep
only the one kind, that is not to be taken
for a perpetual rule in the celebration of
the sacrament, as I have divers times re-
hearsed; especially seeing all the doctors,
when they spake of the common receiving,

156

THE DEFENCE

signify, as I have before declared, that, ac-
cording to Christ’s institution and doctrine of
the apostles, they used both bread and wine.

Albeit I have hitherto so answered you,
as I may seem to grant your gathering of mi-
nistering under one kind upon this place of
Eusebius, I may not omit to advertise you,
that you pick more out of that place, than
by the words ye are able to justify. For
in deed the words seemeth more to make
against you than with you. Parwm eucha-
ristie (inquit) puero dedit, jussitque ut id
infunderet et in os senis instillaret'. “ He
gave to the boy a small portion of the sacra-
ment of thanksgiving, and bade him steep or
soak it, and pour it softly into the old man’s
mouth.” Here note you, that eucharistia
comprehendeth both bread and wine, by the
witness of Justin in his Apology. Where,
after he hath shewed, that both bread and
the cup, over which thanks were given, was
distributed to all present, he addeth: Hoc
alimentum apud nos vocatur eucharistia.
“This nourishment is called the sacrament
of thanksgiving.” Wherefore the priest in
this place gave to the boy a small portion
of both parts; and, because the sick and
feeble man, who had lien three days speech-
less, was not able to receive bread dry, he
willed the boy so to soak the same in the
wine, as he might pour both softly into the
old man’s mouth, and so he did. That it
was this, the words infudit and instillavit
doth declare; which could not be done
without liquor. Neither is it likely, that

[} See note, p. 28, above. ]

eT il

OF THE TRUTH.

157

the priest would will the boy to soak the
sacrament consecrated in a liquor not conse-
crated ; and especially if he were of your
opinion in transubstantiation. This [Thus ]
may you see by your own place, that in re-
servation they used often to keep both kinds;
which might well stand with the manner of
that time, wherein they did every day com-
municate ; so that the wine also might well
tarry until the next day.

The fourteenth canon of Nicene council
in no sense doth prove sole receiving, as you
would have it seem to do?. It appointeth
who should minister, and in what order
they should receive ; first the bishop, then
the priests, after the deacons, and so forth
other that did communicate. This order
taken by that holy council maketh so plainly
against the manner of your private mass,
as I assure you, I marvel that you could
for shame allege it. Who seeth not by this
testimony, that all the ministers used com-
monly to receive together with the bishop
being present? Here was not my lord at
the high altar, and the residue of his chap-
lains and priests in sundry chapels celebrat-
ing by themselves, but all received together,
deacons and all; that it might appear to be
a heavenly feast or supper, and not a work
or sacrifice to be done of one to the behoof
and benefit of a number, that stand by and
look on. The council speaketh not here in
this point of any extraordinary chance, as
it doth in that part that you allege, but of

CAP. X.
Answer to
the four-
teenth canon
of Nicene
Council.

[? See note, pp. 80, 31, above. ]

158

THE DEFENCE

the common ordinary manner which by the
authority of the same council was appointed
to be used in the church. If we had lacked
testimonies for the truth against private
mass, we had been much beholden to you,
for putting us in mind of this place. I
think, such as favour your assertion will
sally thank you for bringing in this
council. But thanked be God, that you
are driven so much to your shifts, as you
cannot maintain falsehood, but that you are
constrained withal to promote the truth.
Where you say, that deacons, in the absence
of the bishop and priests, might themselves
take forth the sacrament and eat, there
appeareth an extraordinary case, as was in
Serapion’s boy ministering. But yet it saith
not, Lpse proferat et edat, which would have
made gaily with you, but, [pst proferant et
edant. Wherefore here is no cloak at all
to cover your private mass or sole receiving,
but all expressly against it. For, albeit
there be no lay-people here mentioned to
receive, yet you understand all the ministers
received together. Notwithstanding this
place proveth not, but that the people at
the same time used to receive with the mi-
nisters. For the bishop, priests, deacons,
with the residue of the clergy and the people
also, communicated all together at one time.
But for order’s sake the priests and clergy
stood together, and the lay-people also by
themselves, and received after the clergy.
Therefore shall you sometime read, that
certain of the clergy, for punishment, as it
were degraded, were rejecti in laicam com-

Sl aN

OF THE TRUTH.

159

munionem}, that is, enjoined to stand with
the lay-people at the communion.

In handling of this place, whereas indeed
all the arguments that you have brought are
nothing but writhings of extraordinary cases,
yet, as though you had great store of strong
and invincible proofs, and such as no man
can stand against, you would seem to yield
unto us of your own right; and, upon a
confidence of your cause, as it were to give
us an argument, that you could wring out
of this canon, for receiving under one kind.
Indeed, such be the residue of your wrest-
ings, and therefore you might have placed
this among them as one of the chief. By
the like argument, yea, and better too, you
may prove out of the same place, that priests
also received but only the body and not
the blood; because it saith, Corpus Christi
porrigant, and mentioneth not sanguinem.
The like you shall read in many places of
the old Fathers, where one part only is
mentioned, when they speak of the priests

[ Thus the Trullan Council speaks of offenders
being év T@ THY aikov dTwlobmevor TOTw. Can.
21. Cone. ed. Hardouin, Tom. 111. col. 1669. And
Pope Cornelius in a letter to Fabius, bishop of An-
tioch, says of a schismatical bishop returning to the
Church,—@ kal éxowwvyjcapev ws Kaikw. Evses.
Hist. Eccl. Lib. vi. c. 43, in Ep. Rom. Pontif. ed.
Coustant, Paris. 1721. col. 149. And Cyprian directs,
that schismatical priests and deacons “hac con-
ditione suscipi cum revertuntur, ut communicent
laici."— Ep. ad Steph. Pap. de Concil. Op. ed. cit.
Ep. 72, p. 197. And Pope Gelasius directs Rufinus
(according to Gratian) respecting an offending clergy-
man,—in aliquo eum monasterio retrudas, Jaica tan-
tummodo sibi communione concessa.—GRATIAN. De-

cret. P. 1. dist. 55. cap. 13. Corp. Jur. Canon. ed.
cit. Tom. 1. col. 191.]

160

THE DEFENCE

[Acts ii. 46.]

receiving ; and yet both are understood.
If you will upon this gather, that deacons
used but one kind, I will infer upon the
same place, that priests also used the like
manner. Buta reasonable man will easily
conceive, that in speaking of one part both is
understood. For in the Acts of the Apos-
tles the whole celebration of the sacrament
is termed, “breaking of bread ;” whereby
we must not gather, that apostles used only
bread in ministration of the Lord’s supper.
I marvel why you make such courtesy to
recite this for a proof of one kind then used,
seeing the best of your collections for this
matter be even of the same sort. Is not
your conjecture out of Tertullian, Cyprian,
Ambrose, even in the same manner ga-
thered; for that they seem to mention but
the one part only? And yet you make
such a brag upon them, as you count all
such to lack discretion, as will not by-and-
by, without contradiction, yield unto them
and acknowledge them invincible. Indeed,
it standeth you upon, seeing your proofs
are of themselves so slender, somewhat to
help them with stout words ; that men may
be almost afraid to doubt of them.

You object to us, that we dally, when
we press you with the words of Christ’s
institution, Accipite, manducate, bibite, di-
vidite; and yet you will urge the words
of the Fathers, as though every syllable
in them were in like manner to be scanned
as the words of the Bible, written wholly
by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But
indeed you declare of what authority you

a eae

ae
ry>

OF THE TRUTH.

161

count Christ’s words, that esteem it a dal-
lying to repeat often his commandments.
Did Cyprian, think you, dally, when, in
one Epistle to Cacilius, he doth well near
twenty times repeat and beat upon this,—
that the sacrament is to be ministered in
no other manner than Christ himself did
use it? Did he dally, when he pressed
upon the matter in this wise ?—“ If in that
sacrifice, that is Christ himseif, none but
Christ is to be followed, then must we
obey and do that Christ did, and willed to
be done ; when as he in his gospel saith,—
If you do that I bid you, then I. call you
not servants but friends. And that Christ
is only to be heard, his Father witnesseth
from heaven, saying,—This is my dear
beloved Son ; him you must hear. Where-
fore, if only Christ is to be heard, we must
not give ear what other did before, but
what Christ did before all. Neither must
we follow men’s custom, but God’s truth;
seeing he saith by his prophet,—In vain they
worship me, teaching men’s traditions and
doctrines. And again, the Lord saith, in the
gospel,— You reject my commandment for
your own tradition. And in another place,
—He that breaketh one of these least com-
mandments and so teacheth, shall be called
least in the kingdom of God. If then it be
not lawful to alter one of the least com-
mandments, how much less may we alter

so great and weighty commandments as

these are, so nigh touching the Sacrament
of the Lord’s Passion and our redemption;
or to turn them to any other purpose,

[PRIV. Mass. ]

162

THE DEFENCE

by man’s tradition, than the Lord ordained
them'.”

These are not my sayings, but word by
word as they lie in that holy father; and
will you say, that he cavilleth or dallieth,
when he thus urgeth Christ’s institution to
be kept, and would have nothing therein to
be altered for any cause that man could
devise? The matter that he wrote against,
was of no more effect than these are of sole
recelving and ministering one part of the
Sacrament ; and yet is he so earnest, as you
see, with a great number of words more to
the same purpose. Think you not, they
could have brought for the use of water

{1 Nam si in sacrificio quod Christus obtulerit
non nisi Christus sequendus est; utique id nos ob-
audire et facere oportet, quod Christus fecit, et quod
faciendum esse mandavit; quando ipse in Evangelio
dicat: Si feceritis quod mando vobis, jam non dico vos
servos, sed amicos. Et quod Christus debeat solus
audiri, Pater etiam de ccelo contestatur, dicens : Hicest
Filius meus dilectissimus in quo bene sensi; ipsum
audite. Quare si solus Christus audiendus est, non
debemus attendere, quid alius ante nos faciendum
putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior
fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi
oportet, sed Dei veritatem ; cum per Isaiam prophetam
Deus loquatur et dicat: Sine causa autem colunt me,
mandata et doctrinas hominum docentes; et iterum
Dominus in Evangelio hoc idem repetat, dicens: Reji-
citis mandatum Dei, ut traditionem vestram statuatis.
Sed et alio in loco ponit et dicit: Qui solverit unum
ex mandatis istis minimis, et sic docuerit homines,
minimus vocabitur in regno celorum. Quod si nec
minima de mandatis Dominicis licet solvere, quanto
magis tam magna, tam grandia, tam ad ipsum Do-
minice passionis et nostre redemtionis sacramentum
pertinentia, fas non est infringere; aut in aliud,
quam quod divinitus institutum sit, humana tra-
ditione mutare !—Cyprian. Epist. ad Cecil. Op. ed.
cit. Part. 11. Epist. 63, pp. 154, 155. ]

ee ere

OF THE TRUTH.

163

only the examples of holy men, and also
goodly considerations in appearance? Yes,
certainly that, and it is to be gathered in
Cyprian, that such were alleged. But he
crieth still, we must follow Christ, and do
as he did, and no otherwise. The truth is
therefore of this your cavilling, that Christ’s
words and institution is so flat against you,
as you have no other shift to escape, but
either, so to imminish and debase the weight
of Christ’s commandments, as they may
appear but indifferent counsels; or, so to
amplify and extol the Church’s power, that
the same, upon gaily devised considerations,
may alter and take away those things that
he hath appointed to be used. Remember
how earnest you have been in magnifying
your own traditions ; as, that the sacrament
can be consecrated after no other fashion
than you have set forth in your mass; in
that the leaving away of one vestment, alb,
tunicle, stole, the omitting of one kneeling,
crossing, or other like gesture, is counted a
heinous matter. And shall it then be es-
teemed a cavilling or dallying, precisely to
require the same to be used according to
the manner by Christ the author taught
and set forth in the holy Evangelists? This
is it that Christ said to the Pharisees, that
they magnified their own traditions, and
left undone God’s commandments. Repeat
you as oft as you list against us, that we
eavil when we urge Christ's institution ; and
you shall hear as oft at our hand, that you
worship God in vain with your traditions,
when you depart from his holy word.

ll—z

164

THE DEFENCE

CAP. XI.
Answer to
Cyprian, De
lapsis.

As touching the history that you recite
out of Cyprian, De lapsis, you make me
doubt of divers things which I should think
most true; either, that you had not seen the
place yourself, but as you found it piece-
meal recited of some other, so to have used
it ; or else, that you thought us so unskilful
and negligent, as we neither knew the place,
nor would seek to examine it; or lastly,

that of purpose you did abuse the simplicity |

and ignorance of them that you conveyed

your writing unto; which commonly be- |

lieve all that you say without examination;
and therefore do you allege for yourself
that maketh expressly against you, if the
place be read, which in Cyprian is in this
wise: “The child being among the holy
company, was not able to abide our suffrages
and prayers; but the ignorant soul, in the
simple and young years, sometime with
weeping and crying did startle; sometime
with trouble and anguish of mind tossed
hither and thither; and as it were by a
tormentor constraining it, by such means as
it could, did confess the guilt of the fact,
(meaning the eating of the idol offering,)
and, when the residue of the celebration was
ended, the deacon began to offer the cup to
them that were present; and after other

had received, and the child’s course was |
come, the babe, as it were by institution of |
God, turned away the face, held the mouth |
and lips together, and refused the cup. Yet |
the deacon continued, and, although the |

infant strived against it, poured some of the
sacrament of the Lord’s blood into her

OF THE TRUTH.

165

mouth. Then followed yexing and vomit-
ing’.” Here were gathered together with
Cyprian, not priests only, but laymen,
women, and children also; and you see the
cup of our Lord’s blood was offered to all,
and all drank in order without exception.
Neither is here anything that by conjecture
can lead a man to think otherwise, but that
this was the common manner then used.
How then can you gather by the extra-
ordinary chance, which you recited before
out of the same Tertullian and Cyprian,
that the laity then used to receive the one
kind of bread only; whereas this place,
brought by yourself, sheweth, that in cele-
bration they used the cup also? The child,
you say, in this history, received but wine
only, and so one kind. That you make
probable, because the child, that had re-
ceived the idol-offering, was not vexed,
before the deacon gave her the wine.
But this reason is plain against Cyprian’s
words, who saith, the child was wonder-
fully vexed so soon as they began to pray.
Therefore, by this place, you can no more
gather, that the child received only wine,
than Cyprian himself and the residue of the
company. But if it were so, is it not most
evident, that it was, either because the child
was so young that it could not, or so
troubled that it would not, take the sacra-
ment of the body; and so at that time
did of necessity, which otherwise he would
not have done? Why, ye will say, my
purpose was to prove no more but that in
. [* See note, p. 34, above.]

THE DEFENCE

necessity one kind might be used. Al-
though I should grant you that, yet it fol-
loweth not, but, at other times, of necessity
both parts of the sacrament should be
taken. For I have divers times said, that
necessity hath no law, and may cause a
commandment of God to be omitted, which,
out of that extremity, ought of necessity to
be kept under pain of God’s displeasure,
By this history it is plain, how necessary
that time did think it, that all present
should communicate with the ministers:
seeing the deacon would not suffer so much
as the little infant to go without some part,
although she strived against him, and
scantly could force her to take it. This
maketh against the fashion of your Private
Mass; where, not infants and children, but
other ministers and the residue of all the
congregation stand looking on, and no man
receiveth, nor is provided for, but only one
priest, that consecrateth and receiveth all
himself. Your handling of this place of
Cyprian may be a sufficient proof to all
men, how soundly and truly you interpret
other men’s writings, and how sincerely you
judge of them, that is, by violence as it
were to strain them to say that which they
never meant.

In like manner you do a little after
in Luther and Melancthon, saying that
they count it a thing indifferent to com-
municate the lay people under one kind,
and that a general council may take order
in it as a thing of no necessity. Sir, it had
been plain and sound dealing, that you

SRE pee ites ha Re ae wa

OF THE TRUTH.

167

should have recited some place where they
had so said; but that ye were not able to
do. For any man that hath been conver-
sant in their works, may right well judge
that it is not so. I will not trouble you
with looking on many places. There is a
little treatise of Melancthon’s entitled De
usu integri sacramenti ; in which ye shall
find divers arguments concluding the neces-
sity of both kinds, and that they sin and
grievously offend, that do restrain the people
from one part of the sacrament. But I per-
ceive this is your common fashion, to make
doctors and writers to speak whatsoever you
would have them to speak.

Now sir, if ye have no better proofs and
testimonies out of the holy Scriptures and
old Fathers, than these which ye have in
this your Apology alleged, I assure you, the
challenge that before was made may justly
be again repeated: and it may be said to
you, that you have out of the Scripture nor
syllable nor tittle, out of the ancient doctors
nor sentence nor half sentence, that doth
directly prove either your private mass or
communion under one kind to the laity.
For all that here you have uttered be no-
thing but writhed conjectures upon cases
extraordinary, and shifts of extremity, to
prove a continual or general rule to be ob-
served in the church of Christ, contrary to
the example and order by himself appointed.
Wherefore there is no cause, that you should
so confidently conclude, as though you had

profoundly proved the matter, and given us,

CAP. XIl.

a ——
aT. Wee eee eee Pare Le
me) yA ET “Y FW ate rr & ae cs ae A Pmt) $ a fe ti

cee

168

THE DEFENCE

as you say, an occasion to discuss and more
curiously to examine the residue of our
doctrines. Think you not, but the meanest
of a great number in this realm (although
they seem but babes and children to you)
have known a great deal more than you
have here alleged; and could have spoken
better for you, than you have yet for your-
self. And yet, when they had all said,

ye do so roll up the names of doctors, say-
ing, Tertullian is against you, Cyprian is
against you, Eusebius is against you, &c.,
As though you had alleged out of every one
of them a number of testimonies for the de-
claration of their minds; whereas you have
brought out of them all but a few bye sen-
tences, of which the more part make nothing

against us, and some expressly with us,
These be the titles of the empty boxes that
| you do use to brag upon. But as you will
| say, your boxes are not altogether empty;
'so will I answer, they have but little good
| stuff in them, and some of them contain
| medicines contrary to the diseases that they
are applied unto: which is the part neither
of good physician nor true apothecary. A
good physician, when the body is troubled
with divers diseases, will so endeavour to
cure and heal the one, that he do not ex-
asperate and hurt the other. But you, ty
Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Nicene counci J
in such sort help reservation, as, by the
same, you clean mar your private masses,
and ministering under one kind to the laity.

it had been nothing in comparison of the |
very truth. It is but a jollity in you, that

a ie al i I i les i Sl el

OF THE TRUTH.

169

Neither will I ever think, that the best and
bagi learned of your clergy can bring much

tter stuff out of their store of the doctors,
than you have done. Wherefore their bonds
of recognisance and possession of the truth
(as you say) hath been fair clokes for them
to hold their peace, whereas indeed they
have in these points or little or nothing to
say for themselves, And surely, if I had
been of your sort, I would have wished, that
you also had been bound in recognisance, if
that would have stayed you from writing:
for both your reasons and authorities by
you uttered, though they seem to yourself
never so strong, doth rather bewray your
part, than pithily defend it. But if you and
yours had never so great store of armour,
provision, and furniture, as, to the terror of
men, you would pretend to have; yet ye
should never be able to bear down the ma-
nifest truth, so evidently appearing in the
words of Christ’s institution, nor the wit-
nesses of the primitive Church agreeing with
the same.

Therefore the thundering in of the
authority of the holy catholic Church, the
prescription of 1500 years, the consent of
most parts of Christendom, the holiness
and learning of so many godly Fathers as
hath been these 900 years, the age and
slender learning of those that stand against
you, doth nothing at all cither fear us, or
move us to suspect that doctrine, which, by
Christ’s authority and witness of the apos-
tles, we know to be true. We have been
accustomed of long time to those vain voices.

Answer to
the argument
of multitude,
continuance
of time, &e.

170

THE DEFENCE

We see they all be either manifestly false,
or at the least of small effect. These are
the mists which you have alway cast before
the eyes of the simple and ignorant, as it
were to blind and amaze them; to the end
that, either they may not see the truth, when
it is brought to them, or, if they see it, to
make them suspect it, when they hear, that
1500 years the more part of the world have
been of contrary opinion. But this is evi-
dently false that you say. For 600 years
after Christ and more, these doctrines were
never heard of in the Church, much less re-
ceived and allowed. Yea, and in the time
following, neither did they so soon take place,
as you would have them seem to do; and
when they were rooted, God stirred up from
time to time divers in all ages that reproved
them. Therefore you cannot justly brag of
quiet possession so long time. But by your
spiritual powers, that occupied the place of
the Church, such men were disgraced, and
their doctrine and books abolished, and, so
much as might be, brought out of memory :
and on the contrary part, by pernicious
flatterers, the works of ancient Fathers cor-
rupted, {and| other new works and epistles
forged in their name; that by this means
your doctrine, which is but new indeed in
comparison of truth, might have a face or
vizard of antiquity, thereby the sooner to
creep into men’s consciences. Shall we think,
that your Donation of Constantine, and a
number of Epistles, attributed to the ancient
bishops of Rome, be their true monuments?
Doth not the barbarousness of the style, the

OF THE TRUTH.

repugnancy to the histories and writers of
that time, the unfit wresting of places of
holy Scripture, so evidently appear in them,
as a child almost may perceive them to be
forged, and not to agree with the spirit of
the primitive Church? Be not yourselves
ashamed of the counterfeit Donation of Con-
stantine, wherewith the see of Rome a long
time blinded the princes of the earth, and
made them almost slaves unto it? Be not
there a number of places in your decrees
fathered upon the old doctors, which either
be not in them at all, or else otherwise than
they be there recited? And shall we think,
then, that truth hath been so long on your
part, when forging and falsehood hath most
maintained your doctrine? Add to this,
that Greece and all the East churches never
received private mass, communion under
one kind, prohibition of marriage in priests,
purgatory, the supremacy of Rome, nor a
number more of your errors; yea, and at
this day think and do contrary to you in
those things. And will you then so falsely
bear men in hand, that the whole Church
was always of your opinion ?

But be it so, that the most part of Chris-
tendom 900 years hath taught as you do. Is
that a sufficient argument to reject a doctrine
evident by the word of God? May not all
Christianity be clean defaced, if such argu-
ments of continuance of time and multitude
of persons should be rules to govern men’s
consciences? Might not the Gentiles have
alleged the like against the apostles and
their successors? Might not they have

171

1 Soe ee ea Re Weer ee ee ae

172

THE DEFENCE

said, and said more truly than you, that
the worshipping of their gods had continued,
not hundreds, but thousands of years? that
the whole world held with them? that the
wise and profound learned philosophers de-
fended their doctrine? that the apostles
were but new heretics, idiots, and unlearned
persons? that their doctrine came from the
doting people of the Jews? that the gods
declared: their displeasure and indignations
against the new teaching of Christ, with
seditions, tumults, wars, plagues, dearths,
tempestuous weatherings, and such like?
Might not the Israelites have counted great
folly in the house of Judah, that they would
swerve from them in worshipping of God,
seeing they were ten parts to one? Might
not the priests in the old law, yea, did they
not, allege against the prophets continuance
of time and multitude of doctors, priests,
and Rabbins? Were they not hundreds to

| one poor Micheas? Did they not the like

in Christ’s time? Did they not beat upon
the long continuance of Moses’ law, which,
they said, he came to destroy? Did they
not deface him for his age, his birth, his
manner of life; and for that he taught
otherwise than a number of the godly, wise,
and holy Pharisees? which in those days
had as great opinion of holiness of life, and
deep learning, as the best of your religious
monks or observant friars. Might not the
Turks for continuance and multitude make
a gay face for the confirmation of Mahomet’s
law? Might not they say, that it hath
continued 1000 years, yea, and that with

Pen sea MT eee eye te et
rei gt ated

OF THE TRUTH.

grent success and prosperity, as it had been
y a singular providence of God? May
they not say, and too truly affirm, that they
have ten for one Christian? May they not
say, that it is not likely, that God would
suffer such a number of nations and coun-
tries to err so many hundred years? Have
they not in many parts of their religion
such apparent devotion, as they may shame
us christian men? And yet is all most evi-
dently false, and God’s truth remaineth
stedfast ; although it bind itself neither to
continuance of time, nor to person, to place,
to number, to this colour of life or to that
in judgment of the world, but is governed
by his divine and inscrutable providence.
Wherefore these reasons make no more for
you and against us, than they did for the
Israelites against the Jews; for the priests
against the prophets; for the Jews and
Gentiles against Christ and his apostles ;
for the Turks against us Christians at this
day.

+ Yea but, you will say, the holy catho-
lic Church of Christ teacheth otherwise,
which is the witness of truth, and cannot
err: especially in those things that apper-
tain unto our faith. For Christ hath pro-
mised, that he will never forsake his Church
unto the end of the world, but guide it with
his Spirit. And his Spirit is not the spirit
of error, ignorance, or darkness, but of truth,
wisdom, and light. Wherefore none can
forsake the guiding and instruction of our
holy mother the Church, without manifest
| peril of their own souls, and such as they

To their ob-
jection of the
Church’s
authority.

174

do lead from the Church. Indeed this accu-
sation is grievous, and may not lightly be
passed of me, although you stay not long
upon it. ‘This is that you fear men’s con-
sciences withal. This is it that indeed
maketh many to stagger in receiving the
truth, when they hear you continually beat
upon the name of your holy mother the
Church, and in words claim that to you,
which verily and indeed is not in you. For
all be not the sons of Abraham, that brag
and avaunt, that they came of Abraham’s
stock ; all be not the people of God, that
say, they be the people of God; all be not
Israelites, that descended of Israel; all be
not christian men in deed, that name them-
selves Christians, I will therefore in few
words declare, what the Church is, and how
we may, if we take not good heed, be de-
ceived by the name of the Church, taking the
Church of antichrist for the true and nght
Church of Christ.

First, how necessary indeed it is for a
christian man to believe the faith of the
holy Church, it may by this appear, that
to be born to everlasting life and salvation,
to be made the son of God and heir of
the kingdom of heaven, of necessity we must
be conceived in the womb of the Church
of Christ, and, as it were, fostered up in
her lap. For she is the mother of all those
that are the true children of God; and in
her custody Christ hath left the treasure of
his grace, by her ministry to be bestowed
among his people. Therefore if we covet to
have entrance into the kingdom of God, and

OF THE TRUTH.

175

be partakers of the graces and promises of
Christ, I confess we must remain in the
faith of his holy Church.

But what is this Church, or how may
it be known? Forsooth the Scripture speak-
eth of the Church of Christ two ways.
Sometime as it is indeed before God, and
not known alway to man’s judgment. Into
this Church none be received, but only the
children of grace and adoption, and the very
members of Christ by sanctifying of the
Holy Ghost. This Church doth not compre-
hend only holy men and saints living on the
earth, but all the elect from the beginning
of the world. This Church is the pillar of
truth, that never continueth in error. This
Church is never forsaken of the Spirit of
God. This is the holy communion of saints,
that in our Creed we profess and acknow-
ledge. But this Church, as after shall ap-
pear, doth not always flourish in sight of the
world. Sometime the Church is taken for the
universal multitude of all those, which, being
dispersed through the world, acknowledge one
Christ, and, being through baptism admitted
into the same, by the use of the Lord’s sup-
per openly profess the unity thereof in doc-
trine and charity. Sometime the Church is
taken for the multitude of those that bear
rule in the Church. This Church is resembled
to a net, which, cast into the sea, bringeth
up both good and bad. It is resembled to
a field, that hath not only pure corn, but
also cockle, darnell, and other weeds. And
as we often see, that good corn in some
grounds is so choked up aud overrun with

What the
Church is,
and whether
it may err.

weeds, as the good grain may hardly be dis-
cerned, for that the weeds bear the chief
rule; even so in this Church the evil and
corrupted doth sometime bear down the
better sort, that a man can hardly judge,
which be the true members of the Church,
which are not. This Church, therefore, for
the most number, may be misled, and in
many things stray out of the way. This
Church may err, and not continually abide
in pure and uncorrupt worshipping of God,
as I will now with good proof farther declare
unto you.

God hath had this his external Church
from the beginning of the world, in-
structed by his holy word, instructed by his
Patriarchs and Prophets, instructed by his
appointed law and ceremonies ; and so con-
tinued till the coming of his dear Son Jesus
Christ. This Church he called his spouse,
his tabernacle, his privy garden, his loved
city, his elect and chosen vineyard. But
did it alway continue in flourishing estate ?
Did it alway in like manner retain the truth
of God’s word that it was taught in the be-
ginning? Did it alway cherish and main-
tain such ministers as God sent from time
to time into it to redress and reform his law
according to his holy will? In what state
was this Church in Noah’s time, when eight
only were saved? In what state was it, when
the ten tribes forsook the right ee
of God, and left only the tribe of Judah? In
what state was it afterward, when the same
one tribe of Judah under divers kings fell to
idolatry? In what state was it, when Elias

OF THE TRUTH.

177°

pitifully complained, that he only was left,
and all other weredepartedfrom God? Where
was the external face of the Church at that
time? In what state was it, when Esaias,
Jeremy, Ezechiel, and all the prophets of God
were persecuted and put to death? I pra
you, was not Jewry then called the people
of God? Had they not at that time the law
of God? Did not they use his ceremonies ?
Didnot they brag and make theiravaunt, that
they could not err? that the truth could not
depart from the mouth of their priests and
doctors? that they had “the temple of God,
the temple of God?” Yes, certainly, they
had even then the law of God. They had
even then the sacraments and ceremonies by
God appointed ; or else the prophets would
never have used their temple or company of
their prayers and ceremonies. Yet how mi-
serably the law of God and his sacraments
were corrupted among them, it appeareth by
that Esay sayeth : “The silver of the people
of God is turned into dross.” How they
entertained the messengers that God sent
to reform his law, it is evident in this, that
all the prophets were slain among them.
This external Church then did err, this ex-
ternal Church refused the truth of God’s
law; this external Church did persecute
the prophets. And yet did not the pro-
phets think, that they could cast them out
of his true Church, or make them not true
members of his people, to which the pro-
mises were made. Neither did the prophets
for that cause cease to call for a redress of
the pure law and ceremonies of God, and

Isai. i. 22.]

[PRIV. Mass. ]

ONE Re A PS TP es eR | ke

178

THE DEFENCE

Te him according to his holy word. |
They did not refrain to tell even those that

said they were the chosen people of God, the
elect vineyard of God, the city and habitation
of God, that they had forsaken the law of
God, that they followed their own devices,
that they worshipped God in vain with their
own traditions; and therefore that he would
not acknowledge them any more for his
people ; that he would set his vineyard open.
to spoil; that he would bring his own city
into thraldom and captivity. After the cap-
tivity of Babylon, when the same Church
was restored, and his people taught by ad-
versity to reform the law, and receive again
the right worshipping of God appointed in
his word, it continued not many years, but
that it was again corrupted horribly, and
led far out of the way, following again their
own phantasies. For when Christ himself
came, for whose cause God had so preserved
that people, they said, that they had Moses’
law, that they were the seed of Abraham,
that they were the chosen people and true
Church of God; that he went about to take
away the law and destroy the temple, and
for that cause did they put him to death.
In like manner did they use the apostles:
they reproved their doctrine as vain and
phantastical ; they cast them out of their syn-
agogues as schismatics and heretics. Yea,
and when they did this, they had in face of
the world those things wherein the Church
is counted to consist. They had doctrine
out of the law of God. They had the
ministry of the same by their priests and

yb Aah od) ies Jai Ab ied ca al iad a
ae Mey Sh bc Loa) MONRYY Ae, pe Pehl

Ty OF THE TRUTH. 179

doctors. They had the sacrament of cir-
cumcision, as the covenant whereby they
were admitted as the people of God. They
had the other ceremonies, wherein they were
_ | practised, to the confirmation of the same.
They had the councils whereby they con-
_|demned Christ, wherein they condemned
_|the apostles, and refused their doctrine.
| They blamed their predecessors for that
_ | they had killed the prophets; and yet they
persecuted Christ and his apostles. Shall
we think therefore that the apostles were not
of the Church? Or rather shall we judge,
that they which have the government of
the law and sacraments, and to the world
have the face and name of the Church, may
so foully err, as they may refuse the true
doctrine of God’s law, and persecute the
ministers and setters forth of the same?
There lacked not God’s promises among the
Jews. There lacked not succession of bi-
shops and priests. There lacked not opinion
of great holiness and austerity of life. There
lacked not great skill and knowledge of the
law of God. And yet is it most evident,
that they erred, that they refused the
truth, that under the name and gay shew
of the Church, in very deed they perse-
euted the Church.
| Why shall we not think that the like
may be in this time? Yea, why should
we not surely persuade ourselves, by the
course of God’s doings, and by the testi-
monies of holy Scripture, that the like is
now in this our time? Our Saviour Christ
and his apostles have left warning abun-

| “ia 12—2
|

THE DEFENCE

Se XXiv.
5.)

- | (2 Thess. ii.4.)

" Tim. iv.
he) j

dantly, that it would be so in his Church,
and especially toward the end of the world.
Christ himself prophesied, that desolation
should stand in the holy place; that is,
in the Church. St Paul witnesseth, that
Antichrist should sit in the temple of God,
that is, in the Church: where it is also
signified, not that he should be an abject
in the Church, but a power avaunting him-
self above the name of God. Peter saith,
that in the Church should be masters and
teachers of lies. Paul affirmeth for surety,
that in the latter days such shall come,
as shall give ear to doctrine of the devil,
forbidding to marry and eat such meats as
God had created to be taken with thanks-
giving. These things were prophesied to
come, not among Turks and Saracens, not
among infidels and Pagans, but in the tem-
ple of God, in the Church of God, in the
society of them that did profess Christ.
We have therefore great cause to mark the
working of God, by the example of the old
Church among the Jews. We see that the
prophets were first vexed by those that bare
the name of the Church, and should have
most gladly received them. We see that in
Christ's time and the apostle’s, not the Gen-
tiles first refused the comfortable tidings of
the gospel, but they that called themselves
the people of God, and had among them
the custody of his law and ceremonies.
Even in like manner we have to think that
he will do in this time, seeing he hath of
the same forewarned us. For even as the
old law and religion of the Jews was a

OF THE TRUTH.

181

shadow and pattern of the true religion
brought in by Christ; so the state and
manner of that Church may well resemble
the state of Christ’s Church in the latter
time. As the old Church, therefore, toward
the end did forsake the law and right use
of God’s ceremonies, and, being divided in
sundry sects, devised new worshippings ac-
cording to their own phantasies ; insomuch
that, for the maintenance thereof, they re-
fused Christ and his apostles: so, in like
manner, may we justly think, that the
Church after Christ, toward the end of the
world, shall depart from the truth of God’s
word and right ministration of his sacra-
ments, cleaving to their own interpretations ;
and being divided in sundry sects of religion,
for the defence of the same, shall refuse and
cast out of the Church such as God will
send to renew the truth of his holy word
and gospel. Wherefore it ought to comfort
and confirm us, and cause us to think, that
we be indeed in the Church, rather than to
fear us; seeing they, that in the pomp and
glorious face of the world seem to have the
government of the Church, doth refuse us,

and take us to be none of the Church. For |

such they were always, that from the be-
ginning refused and oppressed the truth ;
such they were that vexed the prophets ;
such they were that refused Christ; such
they were that persecuted his apostles.
Here perhaps some curious conscience
will be pricked, and think it is not likely,
that God of his great mercy would suffer

his Church and so great a number of people

182

THE DEFENCE

(Rom. xi.
33.)

to err so many hundred years. But we must |
beware, how by our reason of likelihood we | —
enter into God’s judgment and unscrutable
providence. We must think of him as the
course of his doings sheweth us, We must
think of him as his holy word teacheth us.
We must not think of him as our fond
reason will lead us. Is it not marvellous,
think you, and to our judgment unscrutable,
that thousands of years he suffered all the}
nations of the earth to be nursled in idolatry,
and opened his knowledge to only one little
people of the Jews? Is it not marvellous,
that, of twelve parts of that one people, he
suffered ten and a half to forsake him at one
time; yea, and that one part that remained,
not a few times clean to give over the true
worshipping of God; so that in those days
he might scant seem to have any true Church
upon the whole face of the earth? Be not
these things beyond the likelihoods of man’s
feeble reason? May we not say with St
Paul, “‘O unscrutable and bottomless deep-
ness of his divine judgment,” and leave to
seek what is likely in his doings? The Jews
were his chosen people, from which the Sa-
viour of the world should rise. They had
among them his law and ceremonies, his
abundant promises and sacraments. They
had his tabernacle, out of the which he, as
present, spake unto them. If then the deep-
ness of God’s judgment were such toward
them, that he suffered them so oft and so
long to go astray; and since Christ’s time
most miserably 1560 years hath scattered
them upon the earth; may we not fear the

coals So yi i
MAM ONT Reet ye te fe t

OF THE TRUTH. 183

like also among us in this latter time? Doth
not St Paul put us in fear, that, if God did [Rom. xi.
break away the natural branches of the olive, ms
_ |he would also, if cause were given, cut off
__ | those that were but graffed on beside nature ¢
- | Doth not Christ in the gospel forewarn us, |
that in the latter days should be such mis- | [Matt, xxiv.
chief and blindness in the Church, that even tees |
the elect should be in danger to be seduced ?
And shall we then hope at that time to see
the true Church in so triumphant glory of
the world, as it shall make even the greatest
emperors and princes of the earth in world’,
might, and power, subject unto it? Truly
that agreeth not with Christ’s prophecy,
nor the warnings of the apostles, wherein
they tell us of the great danger that shall
happen in the Church toward the end of the
world’.

That it may not be thought to be my only |
phantasy, that the adversary of Christ shall |
in the latter days sit in the Church, and
bear the face of religion, hear you what
Hilary saith, Contra Auwentium; in whose
time the Arians, by the furtherance of the
emperor and a number of bishops, took on
them the name of the Catholics, and per-
‘ secuted the true christian Church. “Ye do
ill,” saith he, “to be in love with walls ; ye
do ill to worship the Church of God in gay
houses and buildings; ye do ill to bring the
name of peace under them. Is it not certain,

[} The word world here is probably a misprint
for wealth. }

[? As for instance, 2 Thess, ii. 3 et seq.; 2 Tim.
| iii, 1 et seq.; 2 Pet. ili. 3 et seq.]

eS, re eee Se ee ee

184 THE DEFENCE.

that Antichrist shall sit in them? Mountains,
woods, marishes, prisons, dens, are more safe
for me. For in those the prophets, either
voluntarily abiding, or cast thither by vio-
lence, did prophesy by the Spirit of God.”
How could a man more plainly declare, that
the true Church both then was, and after
should be, vexed and persecuted by those
that, in sight and power of external govern-
ment, were taken for the Church? It is no-
table also that Augustine hath, De Civit.
Dei, lib. 20, speaking of Antichrist, —Rectius
putant etiam Latine dici sicut in Greco est ;
non in templo, sed in templum Dei sedeat, tan-
quam ipse sit templum Dei, quod est Ecclesia:
‘Some think it were better spoken in Latin
as it is in the Greek, as to say, that Antichrist
should sit, not in the temple of God, but as
the temple of God ; as though himself were
the temple of God, which is the Church2.”
What Bernard did think of the Church in
his time, above 400 years ago, it appeareth
[' Unum moneo, cavete Antichristum : male enim
vos parietum amor cepit, male Ecclesiam Dei in tectis
| edificiisque veneramini, male sub his pacis nomen
| ingeritis. Anne ambiguum est, in his Antichristum
esse sessurum? Montes mihi, et silve, et lacus, et
carceres, et voragines sunt tutiores: in his enim pro-
phetw, aut manentes aut demersi, Dei Spiritu pro-
phetabant.—Hirar. Lib. contra Auxent. $12. Op,
ed. Bened. Paris. 1693, col. 1269.)

{? Unde nonnulli, non ipsum principem, sed uni-
versum quodammodo corpus ejus, id est, ad eum
pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso
suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt :
rectiusque putant etiam Latine dici, sicut in Greco
est, non in templo Dei, sed in templum Dei sedeat,
tamquam ipse sit templum Dei, quod est Ecclesia.—

Aveust. De Civit. Dei. Lib. xx. cap. 19. § 2. Op. ed.
Bened. Paris. Tom. vit. col. 597.]

ao TE eae

Ba aS

OF THE TRUTH.

185

in divers places. “There is no sound part
now,” saith he, “in the clergy; it remaineth
therefore that the man of sin be revealed.”
And in another place: “ All my friends be
now become my foes, all my maintainers
are now become adversaries. The servants
of Christ do service to Antichrist®.” If I
should recite out of authors and histories
all such testimonies as serveth to this pur-
pose, I should be a great deal longer than
this place requireth. I will therefore at this
time omit them.

[? These two citations, which seem to be quoted
memoriter, as no reference even is given to the works
in which they are found, are clearly derived from the
two following passages :

Ipsa quoque ecclesiastice dignitatis officia in tur-

em queestum et tenebrarum negotium transiere : nec
in his salus animarum, sed luxus queritur divitiarum.
Propter hoc tondentur, propter hoc frequentant eccle-
sias, missas celebrant, psalmos decantant. Pro episco-
patibus et archidiaconatibus impudenter hodie decer-
tatur, ut ecclesiarum reditus in superfluitatis et vani-
tatis usus dissipentur. Superest jam ut reveletur homo
pont, filius perditionis—BERNARD. in Psalm, Qui

abitat. Serm. v1. §7. Op. ed. Mabillon. Paris. 1690.
Vol. 1. col. 838.

Serpit hodie putida tabes per omne corpus Ec-
clesiz, et quo latius, eo desperatius; eoque pericu-
losius, quo interius. Nam si insurgeret apertus ini-
micus hereticus, mitteretur foras et aresceret: si
violentus inimicus, absconderet se forsitan ab eo.
Nune vero quem ejiciet, aut a quo abscondet se?
Omnes amiei, et omnes inimici: omnes necessarii, et
omnes adversarii: omnes domestici, et nulli pacifici:
omnes proximi, et omnes qu sua sunt querunt.
Ministri Christi sunt, et serviunt Antichristo.—
Esusp. Comm. in Cantica, Serm. xxx111. § 15. Ibid.
Vol. 1. col, 1392, 1393.

Similar remarks occur, as our author observes,
in divers other places of his works; as, for instance,
in the Preface to his Liber de vita S. Malachi ; Op.
Vol. 1. col. 657, 658.)

| What is the

| Christ's
| Church.
(John x. 27.)

Seeing therefore it doth evidently ap-
pear, that, in the latter time, they shall
bear the name of the Church, which in-
deed be not the right Church, we must
look diligently, that we give not over to
every power that will claim the name of
the Church, but consider whether the true
mark of the holy Church be among them.

Christ, the true pastor, noting which were

| true mark of |

his sheep, saith: ‘‘ My sheep will hear my

voice.” And as by his word and voice he

calleth them into his fold, so by his sacra-
ments there he marketh them. The right
Church therefore, as the fold of Christ, hath
the true word of God and use of his sacra-
ments according to the same, for the due
marks thereof. So much then as the word
of God and use of the sacraments be cor-
rupted among any people or congregation,
so far shall that company be from the state
of the true and perfect Church of Christ.
Therefore it is easy to judge, what is to be
thought of them that leave the word of
God, and worship him well near altogether
with their own devised phantasies.

That the Scripture, which is the voice
and word of God, is the true trial of the
Church, we have good authority in the an-
cient Fathers. St Augustine, Contra Petilia-
num, cap. 2. ‘* The controversy is between
us and the Donatists,” saith he, ** where the
Church is. Therefore what shall we do?
Shall we seek it in our own words, or in the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the head
thereof? I think we ought rather to seek it
in his words, that is truth, and best know-

DT fle nal! ae Ae
Deh ah Seat eee

OF THE TRUTH.

187

eth his body!” Therefore they be not to be
counted the Church, that with their own
words will say they be the Church ; but they
whose doctrine agreeth with the word of
Christ that is head of the Church. In like
manner hath Chrysostom, in Mat. cap. 14:
“Wherefore,” saith he, “in this time all
christian men ought to resort to the Scrip-
tures; because in this time, since heresy is
come into the churches, there can be no other
proof of true Christianity, nor any other
refuge for christian men, desiring to know the
true faith, but only the holy Scriptures. For,
before it was shewed by many means, which
was the Church of Christ, which was Gen-
tility. But now, to them that will know,
which is the right Church of Christ, there
is no means but only by the Scriptures’.”

1 Inter nos autem et Donatistas questio est, ubi
sit hoc corpus, id est, ubi sit Ecclesia. Quid ergo
facturi sumus? In verbis nostris eam quesituri, an
in verbis capitis sui, Domini nostri Jesu Christi?
Puto quod in illius potius verbis eam querere de-
bemus, qui veritas est, et optime novit corpus suum.
Novit enim Dominus qui sunt ejus—Avueust. ad
Cathol. Epist. contr. Donatist., vulgo, De Unit.
Eccles, Lib. unus. [in prior. quibusdam edd., Contra
Petil. Epist. Lib. aCe cap. 2. Op. ed. Bened. Paris.
Tom. 1x. col. 338. }

[? Et quare jubet in hoc tempore omnes Christi-
anos conferre se ad Scripturas? Quia in tempore
hoc, ex quo obtinuit heresis illas ecclesias, nulla
"tial potest esse vere Christianitatis, neque re-
ugium potest esse Christianorum aliud, volentium
cognoscere fidei veritatem, nisi Scripture divine.
Antea enim multis modis ostendebatur, que esset
Ecclesia Christi, et = Gentilitas; nunc autem nullo
modo cognoscitur volentibus cognoscere qué sit vera
Ecclesia Christi nisi tantummodo per Scripturas.—
Curysost. Opus Imperf. in Matth. Hom. 49. Op.
ed. Bened. Paris. Tom. v1. App. p. 204.]

St Augustine hath the like in many words
in the 16 cap. Contra Epistolam etiliani,
which I let pass here for brevity’s sake.
The place beginneth in this wise: Utrum
Donatiste Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi divi-
narum Scripturarum canonicis libris osten-
dant. Quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis
credere oportere, quod in Ecclesia Christi
sumus, §c.1 Wherefore a christian con-
science, that in this dangerous time will
walk safely, must take the word of God to
be his only stay ; must take the holy Scrip-
ture to be as well the rule whereby he shall

[' Sed utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant, non nisi de
divinarum Scripturarum canonicis libris ostendant ;
quia nec nos propterea dicimus nobis credi oportere,
quod in Ecclesia Christi sumus, quia ipsam, quam
tenemus, commendavit Milevitanus Optatus, vel Me-
diolanensis Ambrosius, vel alii innumerabiles nostra
communionis episcopi; aut quia nostrorum colle-
garum conciliis ipsa pradicata est; aut quia per totum
orbem in locis sanctis, que frequentat nostra com-
munio, tanta mirabilia vel exauditionum vel sani-
tatum fiunt...Quacunque talia in Catholica fiunt,
ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non
ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia hac in ea Siunt.
Ipse Gomes Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis, et
discipulorum oculis videndum manibusque tangendum
corpus suum offerret, ne quid tamen fallacie se
arbitrarentur, magis eos testimoniis Legis et
phetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit,
ostendens ea de se impleta, qu fuerant tanto ante
predicta. Sic et Ecclesiam suam commendavit,
dicens, “ predicari in nomine suo penitentiam et
remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes, incipi-
entibus ab Ierusalem.” Hoc in Lege et Prophetis et
Psalmis esse scriptum ipse testatus est: hoe ejus ore
commendatum tenemus. Hec sunt cause nostre
documenta, hec menta, hec firmamenta.—Av«G,
ad Catholicos Ep. contra Donatist., vulgo, De Unit.
Eccles. Lib. unus. (in prior. quibusdam edd., Contra
Petil. Epist. Lib. unus) § 50. Op. ed. Bened. Paris,
Tom. 1x. col. 373.)

OF THE TRUTH.

189

measure the true pattern of the Church, as
the very touchstone whereby he must try
all the doctrine of the same. ‘“ For God
in time past spake by his prophets many
and sundry ways, but last of all by his
dear Son:” whose doctrine how perfect it
was, the woman of Samaria witnesseth, say-
ing,—‘“* When Messias cometh, he shall tell
us all things.” And the same Messias
himself saith,—‘‘ I have made known to you
all that I have heard of my Father.” And
therefore, sending his apostles, he saith,—
“Teach them to observe all that I have
commanded.” Asif he had said, ye shall
declare unto the Gentiles, not whatsoever
shall seem good to yourselves, but those
things that I have commanded you. Those
things therefore are to be heard ; those things
we must stay upon ; in those we must seek
our salvation and life. Whatsoever is not
agreeing with them must be cast off, and
counted of no force. So saith Origen:
“We must needs call the holy Scriptures
to witness: for our senses and declarations
without those witnesses have no credit.”
So saith Hierome: ‘“‘ What hath not au-
thority in the Scriptures, is even as lightly
contemned as it is spoken.” And again, in
Psal. |xxxvi.: “Consider what he saith ;

(? Maprtupas det AaBetv tas ypadas* duaptupor
yap ai émiBodal rjue@y cal ai éEnyioers amicrol
eio.v.—Or14. In Jerem. Hom. 1. § 7. Op.ed. Delarue,
Paris. 1740. Tom, 111. p. 129. ]

[? Hoc quia de Scripturis non habet auctoritatem,
eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur.—H1ERON.
Comment. in Matth. c. 23, vv. 35, 36. Op. ed. Vallars,
Venet. 1766 et seq. Tom. vit. col. 190.

(Heb. i. 1, 2.]

[John iv. 25.]

ny oe XV.

( Matt. xxviii.
20.)

In Hierem,
Hom. I.

hea 3 .
+ oe oe 3
ee : ‘tile

190

‘Which were in it,’ not which be in it. So
that, except the apostles, whatsoever should
be spoken afterward, let it be cut off; let
it not have authority. Therefore be one
never so holy, after the apostles, be he never
so eloquent, he hath not authority ; because
the Lord will make his declaration in the
writing of people and princes that were in
it!.” In that place Hierome at large de-
clareth, that the doctrine of God must be
proved by such writings as were in the
Church until the apostles’ time, and those
that after followed to be of no sufficient
authority, were they never so holy. Let
us stay therefore upon the canonical Scrip-
tures and holy word of God. “ For,” saith
St Cyprian, “hereof arise schisms, because
we seek not to the head, nor have recourse
to the spring, nor keep the commandments
of the heavenly master®.” “Let us ask
Peter,” saith Ambrose, “let us ask Paul, if
we will find out the truth3.” And Christ

[' Videte quid dicat: Qui fuerunt, non, qui sunt:
ut, exceptis Apostolis, quodcunque aliud postea
dicetur, abscindatur, non habeat postea auctoritatem.
Quamvis ergo sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos,
quamvis disertus sit, non habet auctoritatem; quo-

niam Dominus narrat in Scriptura populorum et
principum horum qui fuerunt in ea,— Hieron. Brey,

in Psalm. Ps. 86 (apud nos 87) v. 6. Op. ed. ead. | 4

Tom. vit. Append. |
[? Hwreses invenit [i.e. ‘‘Inimicus”] et schis-
mata, quibus subverteret fidem, veritatem corrum-
eret, scinderet unitatem...Rapit de ipsa Ecclesia
see Daas Hoe eo fit, fratres dilectissimi, dum ad
veritatis originem non reditur, nec caput oe
nec magistri ceelestis doctrina servatur.—CyPRIAN,
De Unit. Eccles. Op. ed. cit. P. 1. p. 105. ]
C The passage that comes nearest to this in the
works of Ambrose (as far as I am aware), and cer-

vi Seve ett. i
pe i A

OF THE TRUTH. 191

himself biddeth us “search the Scriptures,” | (John v. 39.]
and not presume of our own spirit upon
unwritten verities beside the word of God.
What credit is to be given to those that
so speak, Chrysostom teacheth us: “ As
Christ,” saith he, ‘‘when he understood,
that they said commonly of him, that he
was a deceiver, to purge himself of that
suspicion, witnessed that he spake not of
himself, because he spake out of the law
and prophets; even so if any man, saying
that he hath the Holy Ghost, speaketh of
himself, and not out of the gospels, we must
not believe him; for as Christ said, the
Holy Ghost shall not speak of himself, but
shall declare unto you those things that it
hath heard; that is, those things that I
have spoken, he shall confirm*.” These

tainly expresses its sense, is the following :—Sed nolo
argumento credas, sancte Imperator, et nostra dispu-
tationi: Scripturas interrogemus, interrogemus apo-
stolos, interrogemus prophetas, interrogemus Chris-
tum.—AmBros. De Fide, Lib. 1. c. 6, Op. ed. Bened.
Paris. Tom. 11. col. 451.]

[* This citation is a sort of condensed paraphrase
of a passage in a homily on the Holy Spirit, attri-
buted to Chrysostom, but now generally considered
not from his pen. It is reckoned as bis by Photius.
Sir H. Savile says, “Vel Chrysostomi, vel, quod
potius reor, alterius alicujus ex illa erudita antiqui-
tate.” The Benedictines adjudge it to be spurious,
though able, and of an age not much later than
Chrysostom’s. The following are the words which
our author seems to have had more especially in his
eye :—'Ezrel ov of Wevdotpopita: ad’ éavtav éx1j-
puttov, 6 swrijp drodudpevos tHv bmdvotav Eyer
éyw dm’ éuavtou ob Nadw...’Eqel ody tavos évoml-
Gero, Néyer, éyw am’ éuavtov ob Nada, dA amd
vomov, awd TpoPnTer, dca tikovca Tapa Tou Iatpos.
... Edp tis obv Tay dvonatovtwy exe Ivevma, é-
yu Tt dd’ éavtou, kal pn awd Tay evayyediwv, wn

b 7 | é:
(OE Ae he

192

be é. Pp

ewel.

words of Chrysostom clean overthroweth
the ground of all your unwritten verities |
beside the word of God, much more such
doctrines as be expressly against the same,
as is your sole receiving and communion
under one kind. Wherefore neither your
multitude of sundry nations, and great
learned clerks, neither the continuance of
900 years, (if it were so), neither the name
of your holy mother the Church, which you
so often repeat, can be any sure proof of
your doctrines, without the express testi-
monies of the Scripture to witness the same.
For the Holy Ghost, which you assure
your Church of, doth not speak of himself
(saith Chrysostom), but confirmeth that
Christ spake before.

After that you have at your pleasure
in sundry parts of your treatise char
him that you write against with folly, rash-
ness, arrogancy, and impudency, even in
those points that the same crimes may be
more justly returned to yourself and yours ;
in this place also you endeavour to debase
and imminish his estimation, extenuating
his age, continuance in study of holy Scrip-
ture, and manner of life, in comparison of
your late holy fathers, which you do greatly
extol. Such is your shifts, when the matter
will not help itself, to transfer your talk to

Tirrevonre...... Ex Tov un \éyew Ta yeypaupéeva,
a@\X\a ta ad’ Eavrov Aadeiv, dnr\dv éorw Sti odK
éxet IIvevua &yiov. Td Ivevua 76 dytov dd’ éavTod
ov AaAnoe, dAX’ boa dxovoet, dvayyeret buiv’ dvti
Tou, &@ éXdAnoa, TavTa PeBaiwoer.—Homil. de Spi- |
ritu Sancto. 5h, 9,10: inter Curysostomi Op. ed,
Bened. Paris. Tom. 111. pp. 807, 808. }

‘ov id eo Patel a : e * a” re 3 3
OF THE TRUTH. 193

the persons, and by scornful disdaining of
other to procure yourself authority. What

our opinion is of him, your writing declar-
eth; but they which have been of longer
and better acquaintance with him than you
are, do right well know, and in his behalf
do protest, that twenty years since he was
able fully to have answered stronger argu-
ments for these matters than any that you
have brought at this time. But whatsoever
he is to you, God be praised in him, he so
liveth as the most malicious of your part
cannot justly blame him ; and his learning
is such, as, when the matter shall be tried,
I doubt not but it will fall out, that he with
his forty years’ age, and such other, whom
in like manner you disdain, shall shew more
true divinity than a many of your hoar
heads and great reading clerks, as you
think ; whose authority and name alone ye
judge sufficient to bear down whatsoever
shall be brought against them.

Toward the end, you shew your opinion | cap. x11.
of real presence of Christ’s body in the | Orta,
| sacrament, and in that part blame us, as
‘though we had more acquainted ourselves
with Ishmael and Hagar (as you say) than
with Abraham and Isaac; thereby signi-
fying, that we misdoubted the Almighty
}power of God in bringing that to pass,
which he promiseth or speaketh in the in-
stitution of his sacraments. But I must
needs judge this to be in you, either ignorant
blindness, or hateful malice: blindness, if
| you do not understand and see, that in this

[prrv. Mass. ] 13

194 ‘THE DEFENCE ‘ '

controversy we stay not upon God’s omni-
potency ; malice, if you know it and upbraid
us with the contrary. We grant as freely
(Rom. iv. as you!, with Abraham and Isaac, “ That

‘J God is able to perform whatsoever he doth
promise.” We grant as freely as you, with
(Luke i. 37.) | the angel, “That no word is impossible to
God.” We grant as freely as you, with
(Ps. exv.3.) | David, “That God hath done whatsoever
his will was to do.” We grant with the
holy Fathers, that a great and marvellous
mutation and change is made in the sacra-
ment by the power of God’s word®. We
detest, even as much as you, all such as see
no more but common bread or a bare sign
in this holy Supper; neither can we think
well of you, when you do so falsely charge
us with that assertion. But how can you
shew, that it was God’s holy will to have so
many miracles wrought, as you without
necessity do make in this sacrament? Yea,
and of such sort as be contrary to the manner
of all those miracles that the holy Scripture
mentioneth to be wrought by his divine

' See p. 37, above.]

2 As ier instance, in the following passages :—
Ov yap ws Kowdv adprov olde Kowwdv Wopa Ta’Ta
AauBavounev* ad’ dv Tpdmov dia oyou Oeov cap-
cotronbels Incous Xpiatos 6 cwTp ijuav Kal capKa
cal alua brép cwrnpias yyw Ecyxev, ows Kal Tip
ée’ edyns Adyou Tov wap’ al’rov evxapioTnbeioay
Tpopny, ¢& is alua kal capKes Kata petaBoAry Tpé-
cpovrat rjuav, éxeivov Tov capxorroinVévtos ‘Incod
Kal odpxa kal alua éd:da yO ypev etvat.—J ust. MART.
Apolog. 1. §.66. Op. ed. Otto, Jen. 1847. Tom. 1. p. 156.

IIpoo\auBavoueva tov Adyov Tov Beov ebya-
ptotia yiverat, bwep éoti cwpa Kal alua Tov
Xpiorov.—Inen. Adv. heres. Lib. v. c. 2. Ed.
Grabe. Oxon. 1702. p. 400. ]

OF THE TRUTH.

195

eget Moses cdinnied his rod into a serpent;
ut all that were present saw that it was a
serpent. He made water miraculously to
come out of the rock; but all the children
of Israel saw and tasted of the water. Christ
turned water into wine; but all the com-
pany drank and felt it to be wine. The
same is to be said of all the residue of mar-
vellous works. And when God’s power
had miraculously turned these things, that
into the which they were turned, reserved
and kept that nature that was agreeable to
such a thing. The serpent had the very
nature of a serpent; the water was of such
nature as it behoved water to be; the wine
lost not the right nature of wine. Other-
wise it may seem rather a juggling than
miraculous working. You never read in all
the course of the Scripture, that God’s power
turned the substance of anything, and left
the qualities of the other thing that it was
before ; saving only in this case that you
imagine it. God is able to turn darkness
into light, and light into darkness; but it
were madness to require at God’s almighty
power to make light, and not to have a
shining ; that is, to make light to be light
and not to be light all at once; or to make
light and darkness all one. This were no-
thing but to pervert the order of God’s wis-
dom. Do you not this in the sacrament,
when you appoint the body of Christ to be
without quantity, proportion and figure, or
to be in a thousand places at once, which
is proper only to his divinity? Is not this
to take away the nature of a body from his

13—2

196

body, and in deed to affirm it to be no body ?
And yet we say not, but that God is able to
work that also, if it be his pleasure. But
we say, it was not God's will and pleasure
in ordaining the sacrament to have it so.
For neither is there any necessity that
should constrain him to it, nor doth his Word
teach us, that ever he did the like. Oh,
will say, we must believe Christ’s wor
“This is my body,” which be of as great
power now, as they were in the parlour at
Jerusalem, to make the very body of Christ
really and carnally present; and so the
catholic Church (say you) doth teach us.
Wherefore upon this verity once settled,
divers other things must of necessity follow
by drift of reason, although they be not ex-
pressly mentioned in Scripture ; as the ado-
ration of the sacrament, the turning of the
substance of bread and wine, the ane of
Christ’s body in many places at once, &c,
Indeed, sir, such is the vanity of man’s
reason in God’s holy mysteries. For when
it is once departed from the true sense of
God’s Word, it draweth in, as it were by
links, a number of other absurdities; none of
which can have any proof in Scripture, seeing
the first root of them came not out of the
true sense of Scripture. Even so, when you
had devised and given to Christ’s words
another sense, than the meaning of them
doth import, no marvel, if the same reason
do lead you to a multitude of other doc-
trines, not only beside the Word of God, but
expressly against it.

Whether that interpretation, that you

OF THE TRUTH.

197

make upon these words, do more agree with
the Scripture and ground of our faith, than
that which we teach, any indifferent man,
that is not contentiously bent to the one
- or to the other, may easily discern,

our sense is,x—when Christ saith, ‘‘ This
is my body,” that the natural substance of
the bread, which Christ took, was turned
into the natural substance of the very body
that Christ died in; notwithstanding that
the colour, taste, form, and power to nou-
rish, that were before in the substance of
bread, doth still remain: and yet under
those qualities and accidences of bread is
really contained the natural body of Christ,
having neither bigness, nor any proportion
or sensible quality rightly appertaining to
such a body. To express this your mean-
ing, you use to say, that the bread is tran-
substantiate into the body of Christ. In
what tongue or language was it ever seen,
in what author was it ever read, that swm,
es, fui, the verb substantive, might be in-
terpreted by transubstantiare? Or if the
propriety of the word will not in anywise
admit that sense, what one sentence or
clause have you in all the course of the
bible, that under the like words can receive
the like interpretation? Or what proofs
can you bring by conference of other places
of the Scripture, that these words in this
place ought of necessity in this manner to
be interpreted? If neither the propriety of
the tongue can bear the sense, nor you can
bring any examples or proofs out of the
word of God, whereupon men in so weighty

198

THE DEFENCE

(John v. 39.)

a matter may stay their consciences, is it
not extreme cruelty in you, under pain of
damnation to compel them to believe it ?
Here you will burden us with the au-
thority of the holy catholic Church, which,
as you say, hath alway received and allowed
that interpretation. Unto this I answer,
that the catholic Church of Christ never
generally received the meaning of any sen-
tence, but that they gathered the same,
either by examples of the like, or else by
grounded reasons, taken out of the Scrip-
ture, declared [? declaring] that of neces-
sity it must be so understanded. This
rule was appointed to the Church by
Christ and his apostles ; who in their doubts
willed men Scrutari Scripturas, to search
the Scriptures. Therefore when the Church
decreed against the Arians and other here-
tics, that in this sentence, In principio erat
Verbum, the Word was in the beginning,
that Verbum was to be taken for the person
of the Son of God; or when they decreed,
that the Son was ejusdem substantia cum
Patre, of the same substance with the
Father; they stayed not only upon their
own consent and authority, but brought a
great number of proofs out of the Scripture,
that it must of necessity be so taken; as it
appeareth in Cyril, and other of the hol
Fathers. Now then if this that you defend,
be the judgment of the catholic Church, it
hath undoubtedly good proof in the Scrip-
ture; or if you can bring for it no such
testimony out of the Word of God, it is evi-
dent, that you do wrongfully father this

OF THE TRUTH.

199

interpretation upon the holy catholic Church,
and under the covert of that name you do
promote and set forth your own error. And
this much for your opinion.

- On the other part, when we interpret
Christ’s words, wesay it isa figurative speech,
and such as the Holy Ghost often useth in
the institution of sacraments and ceremonies,
or in the describing of other mysteries. The
figure is named Metonymia; when the name
of the thing is given unto the sign. When
these words therefore be laid unto us, ‘* This
is my body,” we say it is most true. But
mystically, sacramentally, figuratively, not
really and according to the natural sub-
stance. For this interpretation we have a
number of examples out of the canonical
Scriptures. God, speaking of circumcision,
saith: “This is my covenant.” And yet
was circumcision not the covenant indeed,
but the sign and testimony, whereby they
were assured to be the people of God and
partakers of his promises. The Paschal
Lamb is called the “Passover ;” and yet was
it but a testimony and remembrance of the
great benefit of God, in passing his plague
from them. “This is the victory,” saith
St Paul, “that overcometh the world, even
your faith.” And yet is not our faith the
victory itself, but the instrument or means
whereby the victory is gotten. In like
manner divers other places; as, “I am a
vine :” “God is a consuming fire :” “The
seven kine be seven years:” and that St
Paul hath to the Corinthians,—Petra erat
Christus, “the rock was Christ.” And

[ Gen. xvii.
10, 13.]
(Exod. xii.
11.]

{1 John v. 4.]

(John xv. 5.]

Heb. xii. 29. ]
Gen. xli. 26,
27.)

{1 Cor. x. 4.]

THE DEFENCE ie

Matt. xxvi.
28; Mark
xiv. 24.]
(Luke xxii.

| 20; 1 Cor. xi.
| 25.)

|
|
|

yet was not the rock Christ himself really ; |
unless ye will take it, as he there doth
in deed, for the spiritual rock. For that
spiritual rock was Christ himself, verily and
indeed, not only in a mystery or significa-
tion. So in the Lord’s supper, if you take
bread for spiritual bread, as Christ doth in
the sixth of John, I will say with you, that
it is really and essentially the very true
body of Christ itself, and not only mys-_
tically. If we had not these many exam-
ples with a great number more in the holy
Scripture to justify our manner of interpre-
tation, yet the very words which the Spirit
of God by singular providence hath used in
the evangelist and St Paul, doth manifestly
lead us unto this sense, rather than to that
you have devised. For in the second part
of the sacrament, where Matthew and Mark
say, “This is my blood of the new Testa-
ment,” that Luke and Paul utter in this
manner, “‘ This is the new Testament in
my blood:” which cannot be otherwise
understanded, but that this sacrament is a
testimony or pledge of his last will and gift
of our salvation, confirmed by his most
precious blood. Wherefore if you say never
so oftentimes with Matthew and Mark,—
“This is my body,—This is my blood ;”
we will repeat as often with Luke and Paul,
who were led with the same Spirit, —“ This
is the new Testament in my body and
blood.”

This interpretation and meaning of
Christ's words, which we gather by con-
ference with other places of holy Seripture,

OF THE TRUTH.

201

is confirmed also by the consent of the
ancient Fathers in many places: whose
testimonies I will recite more copiously ;
partly, because you seem to signify that
they altogether make for you in this matter ;
partly, that all men may see, how unjustly
your sort do term us figuratores, because we
interpret that sentence by a figure, whereas
it is not our device, but the exposition of all
the ancient Fathers of the primitive Church.
First I will begin with Augustine, Contra
Adimantum, cap. 12. There it appeareth,
that Adimantus used Moses’s words, Sanguis
est anima, to make this fond argument : —
** Blood is the soul,” saith Moses ; but “flesh
and blood (saith Paul) shall not possess
the kingdom of God.” Therefore the soul
shall not possess the kingdom of God. Au-
gustine’s answer to that argument is, that
this sentence, Sanguis est anima, must be
understanded figuratively, and not literally,
as he in that argument took it. To prove
that, he useth these words of Christ, Hoc est
corpus meum ; saying in this wise,—Pos-
sum interpretari illud preeceptum in signo
positum esse. Non enim dubitavit Dominus
dwere, hoc est corpus meum, cum daret sig-
num corporis sui, “TI may (saith Augus-
tine) interpret that precept to consist in a
sign or figure. For the Lord doubted not
to say, This is my body, when he gave the
sign of his body’.” As if he had said,—in a
far greater matter than this, that is, in insti-
tuting the sacrament of his death and our

[! Aveusr. Contr. Adimant. cap. 12. § 3. Op.
ed. Bened. Paris. Tom. vrit. col. 124. ]

ee eee ee ee

202

* THE DEFENCE

redemption, the Lord doubted not to use a
figure, and to say, This is my body, when
he gave the sign of his body ; therefore this
sentence, ‘‘ Blood is the soul,” may sooner
be interpreted figuratively. So that the
meaning of it is, that blood is the sign of
the soul or life, and not the very soul indeed.
The same Augustine in his exposition upon
the third psalm ;—Judam (inguit) adhibuit
dd convivium, in quo corporis et sanguinis
sui figuram discipulis suis commendavit.
“He admitted Judas to that feast, wherein
he commended to his disciples the figure of
his body and blood'.” The same exposi-
tion Tertullian maketh most evidently, in
his fourth book against Marcion. Panem
(inguit) acceptum et distributum discipulis
corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus
meum dicendo ; hoc est, figura corporis mei.
“Christ (saith Tertullian) made that bread,
that he took in his hands, and gave to his
disciples, his body; saying, This is my
body; that is to say, the sign of my
body®.” What can be plainer than this ex-
position of this ancient father, if men did not
study rather to maintain parts, than to con-
firm truth. His purpose was there to prove
against Marcion, that Christ had a true body

[' Eum [i.e. Judam]...adhibuit ad convivium, in
quo corporis et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis com-
mendavit et tradidit—Avousr. Enarr. in Psalm. Ps,
iii. § 1. Op. ed. cit. Tom. virt. col. 7.]

* Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis
corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum di-
cendo; id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem
non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus.—TERTULL.

Adv. Marcion. Lib. iv. c. 40, Op. ed. cit. Vol. 1.
p. 303.)

OF THE TRUTH.

203

indeed, because in the sacrament he ordained
the sign or figure of his body; and there-
fore afterward he addeth,—Figura autem
non esset, nist veritatis esset corpus. ‘ That
should not be a figure of his body, unless
he had a very true body indeed.” Augus-
tine again, in 23 Epistle to Bonifacius:
Si (inquit) sacramenta similitudinem quan-
dam earum rerum, quarum sunt sacramenta,
non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent.
Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque rerum
ipsarum nomina sortiuntur. Sicut ergo
secundum quendam modum sacramentum
corporis Christi corpus Christi est, et
sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis
Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est.
And a little after,—Sicut de ipso Baptismo
Apostolus, Consepulti (inquit) sumus Christo
per baptismum in mortem. Non ait, sepul-
turam significamus ; sed prorsus (inquit)
consepultt sumus. Sacramentum ergo tanto
rei, non nisi gjusdem rei vocabulo nuncupa-
vit. * If sacraments had not a certain simi-
litude of those things, whereof they be sacra-
ments, they should not be sacraments at all.
And for this similitude or likeness they
commonly have the names of the things
themselves, Therefore as the sacrament of
Christ’s body after a certain fashion is
Christ’s body; and the sacrament of his
blood is his blood ; so the sacrament of faith
is faith,’ &c. “As the apostle speaketh of
Baptism: ‘ We be buried,’ saith he, ‘in death
to Christ by baptism.’ He saith not, ‘we
signify burial,’ but plainly, ‘we be buried.’
Therefore he doth nothing else but term

THE DEFENCE

the sacrament of so t a thing, by the
name of the thing itself.” St A tine’s
meaning is, to declare to Bonifacius, that
Baptism might be called by the name of
faith, and that therefore the infant baptized
might be truly affirmed to believe, or to
have faith, because it had baptism the
sacrament of faith. This he proveth by
comparison with the sacrament of Christ’s

or likeness, he saith is called the body and
blood of Christ, and that after a certain
fashion ; adding, that baptism in like man-
ner is faith, And yet no man will be so
unwise to say, that baptism is faith in deed
'really. Wherefore the like is to be judged
_ of the sacrament of the Lord’s body, whereby
St Augustine proveth it. This also is

| diligently to be noted, that Augustine saith,
all sacraments generally be uttered by name

of the things themselves, because of a certain
similitude or likeness; and therefore Paul
saith not, we signify our burial, but we be
buried ; calling the sacrament by the name
of the thing, as Augustine saith. Again, in
Libro sententiarum Prosperi,—as it is recit-
ed in the decrees, De consecratione, distine. 2,
cap. Hoc est,—the same Father hath these
words :—Celestis panis, qui est caro Christi,
suo modo nominatur corpus Christi, cum
revera sit sacramentum corporis Christi.
Vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, que sa-

cerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio, mors,
[' Aveusr. Ep. 98. § 9. in ed. Bened. Paris.

Tom. 11. col. 267, 268. ‘The differences of reading
are too trivial to need notice. ]

body and blood; which, for a similitude

ee ere - e)lhCU ee fe ee. 2 te) AD) ere SC _
wile eal a+ rad Ls - A ~ 7°, we :
ayy’ ‘“# 7

OF THE TRUTH.

205

crucifixio, non rei veritate sed significante
mysterio. ‘‘The heavenly bread, which is
the flesh of Christ, after a fashion is named
the body of Christ: whereas in deed it is
but the sacrament of his body. And the
offering of the flesh, which is done with the
priest’s hands, is called the passion, the
death, the crucifying of Christ, not in verity
of the thing, but in a signifying mystery.”
The Gloss, in expounding these words of
Augustine, saith this. Cceleste sacramentum,
quod vere representat Christi carnem, dicitur
corpus Christi, sed improprie; unde dicitur,
suo modo, et non ret veritate, sed significante
mysterio. Ut sit sensus: vocatur corpus
Christi, id est, significat. ‘It is called the
body of Christ, (saith he,) that is to say, it
signifieth the body of Christ*.”

To this I will add Chrysostom, Operis
imperfecti Homil. 11. Si, inquit, vasa sancti-
Jicata transferre ad privatos usus peccatum
est, in guibus non est verum corpus Christi,
sed mysterium corporis Christi continetur,
quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, Sc. ““ If

[? Sicut ergo ccelestis panis, qui vere Christi caro
est, suo modo yocatur corpus Christi, cum revera sit
sacramentum corporis Christi, illius videlicet, quod
visibile, palpabile, mortale, in cruce est suspensum,
vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis, que sacerdotis
manibus fit, Christi passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei
veritate, sed significante mysterio; sic sacramentum
fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est. A ueusT.
in Libro Sentent. Prosperi, cit. in Gratian. Decret.
P. 11. De Consecr. dist. 2. c. 48. Corp. Jur. Canon,
ed. cit. Vol. 1. col. 1180.]

[* Decret, Gratiani cum Glossis. Paris. 1583.
fol. col. 2388, or, Taurini, 1620. fol. col. 1937; both
which editions however read—sed non rei veritate,
sed significati mysterio. |

Se ee ee ee ha Ae eee ee ee ne | Be en
a i ¢ Pe RD ‘- r oma

206 THE DEFENCE |

(saith he) it be sin to transfer holy vessels

unto private uses, in which is not the true | —
body of Christ, but the mystery of his body
is contained, how much less should we
&c.!” What can more plainly declare the
figurative sense of those words of Christ,
hoc est corpus meum, than that Chrysostom
saith, ‘in which vessels is not the very
body, but the mystery of it.” For if those
words were literally to be understanded, (as.
you say,) then should the holy vessels that
contain the sacraments, have in them, not
only the mystery of Christ’s body and blood,
but his very body really in deed; which
Chrysostom denieth. In the 83 Homil. upon
Matthew the same doctor saith, Si mortuus |

Jesus non est, cujus symbolum aut signum
hoc sacrificium est? “If Christ be not dead,
of whom is this sacrifice a figure and sign??” | —
And upon the twenty-second Psalm :—U¢
quotidie in similitudinem corporis et san-
guinis Christi, panem et vinum secundum |

ordinem Melchisedech nobis ostenderet in
sacramento. ‘‘ That he might daily shew us
in the sacrament bread and wine according | —
to the order of Melchisedech, as the simili-
tude of his body and blood’.” As before he

[’ Opus imperf. in Matth. hom, xt. Op. ed. Bened.
Paris. Tom. vi. App. p- 63. Theauthorship of the
| work is doubtful. } |
(2 El yep wy dwréBavev 5 "Incovs, Tivos ciuBora | —
+a Te\obmeva ;—Curysost. In Matth. Hom, 82. (al. | ~
83.) § 1. Op. ed. cit. Tom. vir. p. 783.)
[? Nam vide quid dicit sapientia: sapientia edifi-
cavit sibi domum, supposuit columnas septem, paravit
| mensam suam, misit servos suos convocans omnes, et
dicens: Venite et edite de panibus meis, et bibite
vinum quod miscui vobis. Bt quia istam mensam

OF THE TRUTH.

207

used symbolum, signum, mysterium, so he
hath here similitudinem. Likewise Diony-
sius De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, cap. 3. Per
venerabilia signa Christus signatur et sumi-
tur. ‘* By those reverent signs Christ is sig-
nified and received.” Ambrose also, De hits
qui initiantur mysterits, cap. 9. Ipse clamat
Dominus Jesus, Hoc est corpus meum. Ante
benedictionem verborum celestium alia spe-
cies nominatur. Post consecrationem corpus
Christi significatur. “Our Lord Jesus crieth,
This is my body. Before the blessing of the
heavenly words, one kind is named. After
consecration Christ’s body is signified®.” In
the fourth book also, De Sacramentis,
cap. 8, the same Ambrose saith:— Fac
nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, rationa-
bilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura corporis
et sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi.
** Make to us this offering allowable, rea-
eek ’

sonable, acceptable, which is the figure of
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ®.” Here he acknowledgeth the sa-
preparavit servis et ancillis in conspectu eorum, ut
quotidie in similitudinem corporis et sanguinis Christi,
panem et vinum secundum ordinem Melchisedech
nobis ostenderet in sacramento, ideo dicit: Parasti in
| conspectu meo mensam, &c.—Curysost. Homil. in
Ps xxii et exvi. Op. ed. Paris. 1588. Tom. 1. col. 703.
This Homily is not extant in Greek, and is not inserted
in the editions of Chrysostom’s Works by Savile,
Fronto Duceus, or the Benedictines. ]

[*’Emitebévtev tw Veiw Ouvotactnpiw Twv ceBa-
opiwy cupBorwv, dv ov 6d Xpiotds onuaivetar Kal
peréxetat.—Dionys. AREOP. De eccles. hierarch.
c. 3.8 9. Op. ed. Antw. 1634. Vol. 1. p. 295. |

[> AmBros. De mysteriis, c. 9. Op. ed. Bened.
Paris. Tom. 11. col. 389. Quoted in Gratian. Decret,
P. 3. De consecr. dist. 2. c. 40. ]

[® De sacram. Lib. 1v. cap. 5. Op. ed. ead. Tom.

THE DEFENCE

crament to be a figure. In the sixth book,

De Sacramentis, cap. 1, he hath these words
_ also :—Jdeo in similitudinem quidem accipis
_sacramentum, sed vere nature gratiam
_virtutemque assequeris. “ Therefore thou
receivest the sacrament as a similitude, but
thou attainest the grace and virtue of the
true nature in deed'.” This sentence of
Ambrose containeth our whole doctrine of
the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood:
which is, that it is a figure or sign of his
body ; and yet not a bare or naked figure
but such a one as thereby we attain in deed
the full grace and benefit of his body, that
suffered for us and was crucified upon the
cross, and have our souls fed and nourished
with the same to everlasting life.

Origen upon Matthew saith:—Panis
sanctificatus juata id, quod habet materiale,
in ventrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur, §e.
‘The sanctified bread,” saith he, “* according
to that it hath material, passeth into the
belly, and is avoided out of the body. But
according to the prayer that cometh to it,
it is profitable; making that the mind un-
derstandeth, and hath regard to that is

rofitable. Neither is it the matter of the
read, but the word spoken over it, that
profiteth him which receiveth it not un-

11. col. 371; where however the word ratam is added
| after ascriptam. Quoted in Gratian. Decret. P. 3.
De Consecr. dist. 2. c. 55; where the reading is the
same as above. }
[! De Sacram. Lib. vi. c. 1. Op. ed. ead. Tom. 11,
col. 380; where however for vere and assequeris we
read vere and sor. aot Quoted in Gratian. Decret.
ib. c. 43. where (ed. cit.) we have similitudine and
consequeris. }

Pe tg ee

|
|

iii Aiea alee Ne
"Js 4,2

ee ee eae

OF THE TRUTH.

209

worthily. And thus much have I spoken
of the typical and figurative body. Much
also may be said of the lively Word itself,
which was made flesh and very meat in deed;
which meat he that eateth shall surely live
for ever: which no ill man can eat, &c.?”
Here note you, first, that Origen saith, that
the matter of the consecrated bread of the
sacrament passeth into the belly and is
avoided out, expressly against your inter-
pretation of Christ’s words, whereby ye say
the bread is transubstantiate, and no matter
of it left but only accidences. Secondly,
that he calleth the sacrament, Typicum et
symbolicum corpus, “the typical and figu-
rative body.” Thirdly, that he affirmeth
constantly, that no ill man can eat the very
flesh of the second person in Trinity. And
yet that is one of the necessary labels that
your sort doth teach to depend upon your
wrongful interpretation of Christ’s words.
Wherefore Origen with this one sentence

(? Ei 6& wav +6 cicrropevdpevor els TO ordma, els
kotlav xwpet, Kal eis dedpwva éxBddXeTAaL, Kai Td
aytalouevov Bowpa did Adyou Ocod Kal évtevEews,
Kat’ avTé pév Td bdixdv, els THY KotNiav Xwpel, Kal
els dcpedpwva éxBddeT au’ Kata bé TiHv érvyevouevny
adTw ebxijv, Kata tiv dvadoyiay Tis TisTEws, wWYé-
Atmov yiverat, Kal Tis TOD vow aitiov diaBérews,
dp@vTos él TO Wdedoiv' Kai ovyx 1) UAn Tov dpTou,
aX’ 6 én’ aire eipnuévos \dyos éotly 6 Wpedwy Tov
Bi) avagiws Tov Kupiov éo8iovra aitév. Kal tavra
Bev wept Tov TuTiKod Kat cupBodiKod owpLaTos.
Tlo\X@ & av Kai wepi aitot Néyorto Tov Adyou, ds
yéyove capt, cal ddnOunj Bpwors, iv Twa 6 paywr
TavTws Lijcera cis Tov ald@va, obdevds duvanévov
patrov éstiew abtiv.—Onric. Comment. in Matth,
Tom. x1. § 14. Op. ed. Delarue, Paris. 1740. Tom. 111.
pp. 499, 500. |

[PRIV. MASS. |

teareth off divers of your counterfeited labels,
that you stitch to Christ’s testaments by
drift of reason, without the warrant of his
holy word. Moreover, Augustine, De Doc-
trina Christ. Lib. mm. cap. 9, after he hath
declared, that in the New Testament God
hath left unto his people but few sacraments
and ceremonies, and the same to be under-
standed not carnally and servilely according
to the letter; and there for example hath: |
mentioned baptism and the celebration of
the Lord’s body and blood; in the end he
addeth these words: ‘In which,” saith he,
“as, to follow the letter, and to take the
signs for those things that are signified by
them, is a point of servile infirmity ; so, to |.
interpret the signs evil, is the point of wan-
dering error'.” As he counteth it a fond
and wicked error, not to interpret the signs
well and according to God’s word, so by a
straight literal sense to take the signs for
the things signified, he esteemeth a servile
infirmity. What can be more plainly spoken
against that interpretation that you make
upon these words of Christ; whereby you
do bind us to a servile and literal sense of
this word, ‘‘ Is,” and in such sort take the
signs of this sacrament for the things signi-
fied, as you affirm bread and wine (which St
Augustine and the other doctors call the ex-
ternal signs,) clean to be turned into the body
and blood of Christ? The same Augustine
1 Ut autem literam sequi, et signa pro rebus que |
iis significantur accipere, servilis infirmitatis est; ita
inutiliter signa interpretari, male ntis erroris
est.—Aveust. De Doctr. Christian. Lib. m1. ¢. 9. | —
Op. ed. Bened. Paris. Tom. 111. P. 1. col, 49.] /

OF THE TRUTH.

211

Contra Adimantum Manich. :—‘ The Lord
saith, ‘This is my body,’ when he gave the
sign of his body?.” Also upon the xcviii.
Psalm he speaketh in this manner :—“ Ye
shall not eat that body that you see, nor
ye shall not drink that blood that they
shall shed. It is a mystery, that I tell you;
which shall relieve you, if you understand
it spiritually 3.”

Will you not yet understand, from
whence our men received this interpretation?
Will you not yet perceive, that we sucked
not it out of our own fingers, but were led
unto it by the testimonies of holy Scriptures
and teaching of these ancient Fathers ? Will
you not cease unjustly to burden us, that
we cavil and dally upon tittles and sylla-
bles; whereas yourself in this sentence
would drive us to such an understanding
of this one syllable, “Is,” as the like is
not in the whole Bible?

But ye will allege for yourself, as you

signify in your writing, that Ambrose, Cy-
| prian, Chrysostom, and other ancient Fathers

ave in this case used the terms of transmu-

tation, alteration, conversion, transelementa-

tion, &c.: whereby they have plainly declared

their meaning to be as yours is; and that
fs See note, p. 201. above.]

[? Me [i. e. ; — autem instruxit eos, et ait illis,
Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem nihil prodest:
verba qu locutus sum vobis, spiritus est et vita.
Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum: non hoc
corpus quod videtis, manducaturi estis; et bibituri
illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent.
Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi: spiritaliter

intellectum vivificabit vos.—Avueust. Enarr. in Psal.
xeviii. § 9. Op. ed. ead. Tom. rv. col. 1066. ]

14—2

THE DEFENCE

no bread there remaineth, but only the sub-
stance of Christ’s body. True it is indeed,
that those holy Fathers used such words,
not for that they were of your opinion, but
only to the end they might more reverently,
as meet was, and more lively express the
dignity and effect of that heavenly mys-
tery ; wherein Jesus Christ, by his infallible
promise, unfeignedly giveth to the faith of
_his people the very fruition of his body and
| blood, with the whole benefit of his precious
death and passion, and by the working of
the Holy Ghost marvellously joineth us in
one body together with him. Is not this,
think you, a marvellous change, and to
man’s estimation a miraculous work ; when,
by the power of the Holy Ghost and word
of God, of common bread and wine, such
as we daily feed our bodies with, is made
the dreadful and reverend sacraments and
mysteries of Jesus Christ; whereby (as I
said) he doth, not by a bare sign only, but
verily and indeed endow his faithful people,
and make them partakers of his body and
blood? Yea, and that in such sort, that
even as truly as the bread doth nourish our
body, and even as truly as the wine doth
comfort our spirits, so truly and unfeignedly
doth the heavenly food of his body and |}
blood, torn and shed for us, by faith, in time

and comfort our soul ; and, by the wonderful |
working of his Spirit, make our bodies also
apt to resurrection. Truly when I earnestl

consider the effect of this sacrament, as it
must needs be by the truth of Christ’s pro- | —

of that holy supper, nourish, strengthen, | —

; rie aes >
aN el
| wae
.
a i
¥) } ae

OF THE TRUTH. 213

mises, I confess I am not able with words
to utter so much as in my mind I do
conceive, and together withal eschew the
absurdity of your real presence and transub-
stantiation. Wherefore I marvel not, if those
holy Fathers, fearing no such inconveniences,
but looking rather pithily to express the
thing, did use those earnest words and man-
ners of speaking; and yet meant not as you
now of their words do gather. Although
no similitude can sufficiently declare the
thing, I will, for the simpler sort, so much
as I can, endeavour by a comparison to set
forth that I do conceive. If a temporal
prince, for certain causes moving him, would
give you a thousand pound land by the
year, and for that purpose had caused the
writings to be made; the same writing,
until it be confirmed by the prince, is no-
thing but common parchment and ink framed
into letters by some inferior man’s hand,
neither doth it bring any effect; but when
the prince hath once added to his seal, and
confirmed the grant, it is no more called
parchment, or common writing, but the
king’s letters-patents ; and now hath that
reverence, that all to whom they be shewed,
do vail their bonnets, as bringing with it
some part of the prince’s majesty. Such a
change is now made in those trifling things,
that before no man esteemed. You also,
to whom this land should be given, would
not think this writing common parchment
blotted with ink, but the perfect deed of
your prince, whereby you were assuredly
possessed of the foresaid lands. Moreover,

214

when the prince, at the delivery of the same,
should say, Sir, here is a thousand pound
land that I give freely to you and to your
heirs, I think you would not be so fond to
think, either that the prince doth mock you,
because you see not the lands presently, or
else to conceive with yourself, that you have
the lands really inclosed within the compass
of your writing. For the arty authority |
in the writing giveth you as full possession”
of the lands as though you held them, if
it were possible, in your hand. And you
in this case might justly say to your friend,
shewing your letters-patents, Lo, here is a
thousand pound land that my prince hath
given me. If then there be so great a
change made in framing the covenant and
deed of an earthly prince; if his seal do
bring such force and effect to his gift and
letters-patents ; how much more marvellous
change, alteration, or transmutation, must
we think it to be, when the base creatures
of bread and wine be consecrated into the
sacrament of the everlasting covenant and
testament of Jesus Christ; wherein he
giveth us, not earthly vanities, but the
precious food of his body and blood, remis-
sion of sins, and the heritage of his heavenly
kingdom! how much more of effect mist
this sacrament be, that is sealed with the
promise and words of our Saviour Christ,
who is truth itself, and cannot deceive any
that trusteth in him! Wherefore, to ex-
press this change of the external elements
into so heavenly mysteries; to shew the
effect of this sacrament; to withdraw the

OF THE TRUTH.

215

ignorant minds of the people from the pro-
fane cogitation of a bare sign in this matter,
the ancient Fathers had good cause to use
such words. And yet therein do they no-
thing at all defend your miraculous works,
that you devise to be made in the Lord’s
supper.

‘As for the similitude wherewith you
would declare the necessity of your labels,
depending upon the first founded absur-
dity, it is both of as small force as other
that you before used, and you handle it
with more sluttish eloquence than is meet
for such a matter as this is. For the draw-
ing of the capons, the scumming of the pot,
the stinking water, the hewing of wood, the
putting on the broach with guts, garbage
and all, &c., be phrases and terms more
meet for the kitchen than for the divinity-
school ; and such as yourself, I think, would
not have used, if your mocking spirit had
not so ravished you, as you wist not what
you did. If we had resembled your labels,
which you cut out by drift of reason, unto
so base matters, you would have said, that
we had railed, and done otherwise than it
became us. But since yourself doth so take
them, we must think, that God oftentimes
moveth his adversaries to utter truth against
themselves. But if the same master, that
you imagine to command his servant to
make ready that he may dine, did mean

only that he should set upon the table such

cold meat as was in the house, because he
saw no cause or necessity of greater pro-
vision, and the servant, upon his own foolish

ae eS ee i a - wet
ee Oe ne eae ate eae

216

head, would mistake his master’s command-
ment, and conceiving that he would have
great strangers, did kill his capons, chickens,
and other provision about his house, and
busied himself, with more labour than
thank, to make them ready; do you not
think, I pray you, that he might justly
be counted an unprofitable servant and
worthy by correction to be taught more
wit, for that he putteth his master to greater |
charges, and himself to more pains, than the
matter required, if he had rightly under-
standed his master’s will and commandment ?
Even so, sir, those things that you say
followeth by force of reason and argument
upon the first sentence, do follow indeed
only upon that sense that yourself doth
imagine, mistaking your master’s will and
pleasure ; and not upon that meaning that
Christ himself would have his words to be
taken in. For all that he would have done
may be sufficiently done without the work-
ing of so many miracles, as you in this case
would drive his omnipotency unto. Where-
fore we are not so much to be blamed for
mistrusting the almighty power of God,
which we confess to be in all things, that
his pleasure is to have it shewn [by], as you
are for presuming upon the same to have
miracles wrought beside his will and without
necessity. For by the means of your mani-
fold miracles, without the express word of
God, whereupon men’s faith in such matters
should be grounded, you make that sacra-
ment a torment to try men’s weak and feeble
consciences ; which Christ ordained to be a

OF THE TRUTH.

217

comfortable and spiritual feeding, to increase
and strengthen the consciences of christian

This have I thought good to answer
[to] your defence of private mass; and, as
a champion not meet to match with any
great clerk, yet in such sort as I could, to
resist your assault, that you make upon the
foresaid protestation, not as good David
valiantly assaulted Goliath in defence of his
prince and country, but as amorous Paris
traiterously shot at Achilles in the behalf
of his love Helena. For neither is it Goliath
that you fight against in his bravery, as you
say, bragging against the people of God, but
rather Achilles manfully revenging the in-
cest committed with the spouse of Christ,
which with your amorous cups you have
allured from him; nor yet do you come
stoutly as David did in the name of the
living God, before the face of both the armies
to hurl your stones, but privily out of a
corner shoot your arrows against him, as
Paris against Achilles. You were afraid,
perhaps, if he had seen you, that, with
shame enough, he would have wrung your
bow and arrows out of your hand; but
truly I think, he would not have so done,
but rather, knowing that in this quarrel he
could not be wounded, he would have suf-
fered you to shoot your fill, and with his
naked hand receiving your blunt arrows,
in such sort would have picked them at
your face, as for shame either you should
have run out of the place, or at the least
submitted yourself and yielded to the truth,

218

that you protest yourself to have forsaken,
Wherefore as you have the fear of God, as
you have care of your soul’s health, I most
earnestly exhort you to leave study of con-
tention; and with a single heart diligently
to ponder the reasons on both parts as the
weight of the matter requireth. Consider,
as the holy father Cyprian counselleth}, of
what authority Christ’s institution ought to
be; that we should not be so bold to alter
any part of those weighty and great precepts
that so nighly touch the sacrament of our
salvation. Consider that neither Christ’s
ordinance, nor the testimony of St Paul,
maketh any signification of sole receiving,
or ministering under one kind, but all con-
trary wise. Consider that Justin?, Diony-

sius3, Cyprian‘, the holy council of Nice’, |

with all other the ancient Fathers, testify the
common manner of the primitive Church to
have been in form of a communion and that
in both kinds. Consider that Chrysostom®
and other so earnestly call the people being
present unto it, as they affirm them to do
impudently that do refrain. Consider that
the manner of the primitive Church was, as
Dionysius’ witnesseth, that none did remain
in the church, but those only that would
communicate. Consider that Anacletus'®,

' See note p. 162, above. }

® See note, p. 81, above.

3 See note, p. 83, above.
* See notes, pp. 33, 4, and 75, and 140, above.]

5 See note, pp. 30, 31, above, and our author's |

remarks on it, pp. 157, 8.]
6 See notes, pp. 68 and 107, above. ]
7 See note, p. 83, above.]
® See note, p. 128, above.]

ye a ee rE EE s ~ =F”
Ib oy Brees dangle on tee ¥ ; uy

OF THE TRUTH.

219

Sixtus’, the canons of the Apostles’? and
Antioch" council threatened excommuni-
cation and punishment to such as, being pre-
sent at consecration and reading of the lessons
of Scripture, would not receive. Consider,
I say, and unfeignedly weigh these things
with yourself, and ye cannot choose but
see, that the authority of God’s word and
consent of the primitive Church maketh
wholly with us in these matters. And
on the contrary part you shall perceive,
that you have no colour in the Scripture
for private mass; that you are fain to seek
defence in the Church’s authority beside
God’s word ; that your reasons be grounded
on false principles and such as have no
proof at all; that your authorities out of
the doctors be either abuses of the primi-

[® This is a misprint, I conceive, for Calizxtus, to
whom our author has referred above, in connexion
with Anacletus, on this point; in consequence of the
testimony attributed to Calixtus in the early editions
of Gratian’s Decree, P. 3. De Cons. dist, 2. c. 10.
See p. 128, above. }

[%° IIdvras rods elowvras ToTovs, Kal Tov
ypapaev dxovovras, ui Tapapévovtas 6& TH Tpoo-
eux Kal tH dyia peradywe, ws atatiay éumol-
ouvTas TH éxkAnoia, dpopifecbar yxpr.—APOSTOL.
Canon. ix.; Concil. ed. Hardouin. Paris. 1715. Tom. 1.
col. 12. Quoted in Gratian. Decret. P.3. De Consecr.
dist. 1. c. 62. It is variously numbered in different
editions as Can. 7,9, & 10.]

1! Tdyras rods elowdvtas eis THY éxkArjovav TOU
Qcov, kal Tav lepav ypapwy dkobovtas, pn KoLvw-
vouvras dé evyis dua TH aw, } drooTpepopévous
wiv perddnWw Tis evxaptorias KaTa Twa aTaEiav
Tovtous dtoBdHrous yiverOat THs éxxAnolas, Ews
dv éEopodoynoduevor kal deifavres Kaptovs meTa-
votas, xal wapakaXécaytes, TuxXetv duvnfwot ovy-
yvepns.—ConciL. ANTIOCH. (a, 341.) Can. 2.; Concil.
ed. Hardouin. Tom. 1. col. 593, 4.]

THE DEFENCE

tive Church, or such extraordinary cases |

of necessity, contrary to the common man-
ner, as they cannot be rules to shew either
what was then orderly done, or what now
ought of right to be done.

Be not these gay reasons, think you, to
build men’s consciences upon? Private mass
is nothing but sole receiving in case of ne-
cessity ; therefore it is lawful. The priest

may celebrate alone in the assembly of the |

people, because divers in necessity and
extremity received alone in their private
houses. The priest may receive alone when
the people will not, because he is bound to
offer, and the people is left free. The priest
may do it when he will, because he may do
it in necessity when the people will not.
The minister may receive alone, for com-
pany is but an ornament, and not of the
substance of the sacrament. The doctors
in divers places name one kind; therefore
one kind only was received of the people.
How will you be able to prove, that private
mass is nothing but sole receiving in neces-
sity ? How will you be able to prove, that
it is all one thing for the minister in the
congregation, and a lay man at home in
peril to receive alone? How will you prove,
that the priest is bound to the rn
of the sacrament, and the peuple left free

How will you prove, that company is but
an accident or ornament to the sacrament,
or that one kind only was received, because
one kind only was named? And yet these
arguments must be good, or else those

proofs and testimonies that you would have| —

Peet eet ie ae nea

OF THE TRUTH.

221

to seem invincible, shall indeed be of no
force.

O sir, for the love of God, weigh the
matter more indifferently. Do not dissem-
ble that you must needs know. If you
will have your doctrine tried by the balance
of the Scripture and primitive Church, add
more weight to your side of the balance, or
else confess that your part is the lighter.
Let not the vain sound of the holy
Church’s name, where the thing is not,
lead you to be enemy to that doctrine,
which you see to have more force in the
Word of God. Remember that the true
Church is ruled and guided only by Christ’s
word and doctrine. “If you abide (saith

he) in my word, then be you my truce.

disciples.” Christ is the good shepherd,
and the Church is the fold of his right
sheep. Christ is the wise master, and the
Church is the company of his diligent
scholars. Christ is the bridegroom and the

Church is his dearly beloved spouse. The true |

Church, therefore, will not go ranging what
way she lusteth; she will not learn of her
own brain; she will not follow her own
phantasy. They be wild goats, they be
not tame sheep, that when the shepherd’s
voice calleth one way, will run headlong
another way. They be self-will moichers',
they be not diligent scholars, that, leaving
their master’s teaching, will follow their own

[? [ give this word as spelt in the original, not
being sure what is intended by it. Possibly the phrase
intended may be self-will mouchers, from the old

| word mouch, signifying to swallow greedily. |

| [John viii.
bbe)

ee I

eS | ee, Ce ee Pea ee eS eee
: " re 7 tien hae) a A 7 Ve

1 ae 2

THE DEFENCE

interpretations, She is a froward and
sumptuous woman, she is not an ent
wife, that will make light of her husband’s
commandments, and think she may alter
them at her pleasure. The true sheep of
Christ therefore, the diligent scholars, the
obedient spouse, that is, the right and true
Church, will hearken only to her

Shepherd’s voice, will follow her Master’s
precepts, will obey her Husband’s command-
ments. How then can you excuse yourself
by your holy mother the Church, if you
teach otherwise than Christ hath taught,
and make such interpretations, of your own
head, as have no ground in his holy Word?
You do under that name maintain your
own error; ye follow not the Church’s au-
thority. If you will hearken to Christ’s
Church, to the apostles’ Church, to the old
Fathers’ Church, neither Christ, nor the
Apostles, nor the Fathers teach you any
such thing. And so ye seem yourself in a
sort to confess, or else ye would never strive
so much for unwritten verities, and autho-
rity of the Church in doctrines beside God’s
word. You needed no such helps, if your
teaching had just proof in the Scripture and
ancient Fathers, as indeed it hath not.

This [Thus] have I framed my answer
unto you in such sort, as I trust the in-
different reader may judge, that my mind
and purpose is, rather directly and plainly
to confute the sum of your untrue doctrine,
than, as you do, to seek shifts by cavillin
to discredit my adversary. For if I shoul
have scanned every syllable, word, or sen-

4 el) pte les aut ie et ts)

OF THE TRUTH.

223

tence, that in this writing hath passed you,
and endeavoured captiously to have taken
advantage at every trifle, (as your sort is
wont to deal with us for fault of better
matter,) both I should have fallen into that
fault that I protest myself to mislike in you,
and my answer would have grown to such a
“ink as it might justly have wearied the
reader. I have therefore meddled only with
the principal points of this your Apology,
which may seem to be of chief force in those
matters that you touch : and of purpose have
let pass many small trifles, wherein both
you might justly have been reproved, and
some men, I know, will think meet and
worthy to be answered. I will now end,
and cease any further to exhort you to a
more diligent examining and discussing of
the residue of your doctrines; trusting that
your own conscience, having now more fear
of God than you say you had before, will
drive you to the same. Which I pray God
may be, if not by this occasion, yet by some
other, when his holy will shall be.

Finis.!

[) The colophon is,—Imprynted at London in
Fleetestreete, by Thomas Powell. ]

ERRATUM.

P. 30. note, 1.1, 2. For Dionysius Exiguus read
Isidorus Mercator.

AUTHORS CITED OR REFERRED TO,

mar 4

Ambrose. 27. 75, 6. 96. 102. 133.

140. 191. 207-8. 211.

Anacletus. 128. 218.

Apostles, canons of. 219.

Augustine. 7. 91. 93. 94, 5. 101.
120, 1. 146. 148. 184. 186, 7.
188. 201- 5. 210, 1.

Basil. 38. 141.

Bede. 121.

Bernard. 184, 5

| Calixtus. 219.
Chrysostom. 13-6. 54. 68. 78.

84. 94. 99-101. 103. 104-7.
129. 142, 3. 187. 191, 2. 205-7.
21). 218.

Liturgy of. 97.

Clemens Alexandrinus. 88, 9. 91.
146.

Romanus. 151, 2.
Constantine, Donation of. k70, 1.
Cornelius Papa. 159.

| Council, of Antioch. 219,

Basi). 39.

Constance. 38.
Eliberis ( Elvira). 102.
Florence. 39.

aN LILI

in Trullo. 159.
Valence. 39.
Cyprian. 24. 33, 4. 54. 62. 74, 5.
80. 84. 96. 109, 10. 115. iL,

>
122. 124. 129. 131, 2. 136. 139.

165, 6. 190. 211. 218.
Cyril (Alex.) 25, 6. 124. 149.

Disntaes Areopagita. 20. 54.
82, 3. 207. 218.
— Exiguus. 30,
Erasmus. 22, 123.
Eusebius. 28. 92. 153, 156, 159.
Gelasius. 138. 159,
Gratian. 121. 137. 138, 151. 159.
205. 208. 219.
Gregorius Nazianzenus. 141,
Hilary. 141. 183, 4.
Ignatius. 67.
Irenzus. 89. 90. 91, 2. 194.
Isidorus Mercator, 223 (30.)
Isychius. 150.
Jerome. 126, 142. 189. 190.
Jewel, Bishop. 4. 45, 50. 192.
Julius Papa. 137.

Justin Martyr. 54. 81. 90. 125,

129. 146. 156. 194. 218.
Leo Magnus. 70.
Luther. 166.
Melancthon. 166, 7.
Onieep: 124. 147. 149. 189. 200,

Serie Papa. 77.

Socrates. 121, }27.

Sozomen,. 121.

Tertullian. 23. 62. 89, 124. 129.
133. 139. 147. 202.

Theodoret. 140,

THE END. . a

‘4

BX Cooper, Thomas, Bp. of
2230 Winchester
A62C6 An answer in defence of the

1850 truth

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

PA ee MON NS. CUA AR NMA SLT RS

MENS
aia, ae

ise
swt

‘é Yeoh x
WS it
eo a¢
yal

e. AA
oe Pra ae

>
-ee

a pat at oe Mate

a Py He he

Pew.
AK

x
EGAN easy aay 3
7) v rs lg ,
SOt NS ROR
Mie

ae
‘ |
'¢ } !
,
Puta |
,
Abe Nf |
. i re
3c 5!
“4 1%
baad oa]
‘ ;
aa ,
% *, ?
La tend,
2 » !
“4 uf

our
cyte?
fray

Ses

+
25
b Phd &
tia
»’ ¥. :
‘

+3 ‘ MAS aA ¢ ;
pe ty oN S: Ae (A ae ST ar J A}, ’ +7
ae aL at al Gratien rh Sass PIR OL ae AL eae e
eo HSE ATC ERAS rAd s ; Poles,

s - ‘ ‘ 4 r™ é 7 . ‘ e

“ ~~ ld ath ld A a, ve ~ Pa os a» * ater peep " ‘
Pa : MORAL t Wee pa LOCATORS PE AY AA a «ae le OB AY

} 7 oA 70 ’ Py Veo sare 4! SAN br /4, OT re hohe

" \. PEE Hite te rll J: SSRIA, a a / ‘ f A gueseets AP

{

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

See other formats